Mapeley Beta Acquisition Company Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor

A compulsory purchase order must be justified by the statutory criteria, proportionate interference with property rights, adequate evidence and proper consideration of material alternatives. The decision-maker’s primary task is to determine the objections, not to devise alternatives, although fairness may require consideration of obvious and credible alternatives advanced by an objector.

Reasons must address the principal contested issues and explain the outcome intelligibly. The degree of detail required depends on the nature of the issues and the familiarity of the intended audience. A compelling public interest justification for compulsory purchase does not create a separate or heightened duty to give reasons.

The claimant challenged the Secretary of State’s confirmation of a compulsory purchase order made by Swindon Borough Council for land forming part of the Kimmerfields regeneration scheme in Swindon. The challenge was brought under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.

The claimant accepted the general regeneration scheme but opposed compulsory acquisition of plot 4, arguing that the proposed pedestrian route could be relocated, narrowed, or provided through negotiated use of the plot. The Secretary of State accepted the inspector’s report without adding to it. The central issues were whether the inspector had addressed the material alternatives and whether the reasons given were adequate and proportionate.

1. The challenge was dismissed. The inspector had adequately addressed the principal issue, namely whether the alternative Tri-Centre pedestrian route made acquisition of plot 4 unnecessary. His conclusion that the alternative was unattractive, unclear and inconsistent with the scheme was sufficiently reasoned.
2. Under section 226(1)(a) and section 226(1A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a local authority may exercise compulsory purchase powers where it considers that acquisition will facilitate development, redevelopment or improvement and that the development is likely to contribute to economic, social or environmental well-being. The power must also be exercised compatibly with property rights and proportionality under article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention.
3. The decision-maker’s primary task is to consider the objections to the compulsory purchase order, rather than search for alternatives. Fairness may nevertheless require consideration of obvious alternatives, particularly where a credible alternative package is advanced. The inspector was not required to devise an alternative scheme where none had been properly put before the inquiry.
4. The suggestions that the Link route could skirt or narrow around plot 4 were subsidiary points. The inspector had implicitly rejected them by accepting that the route needed to be a broad, straight avenue of constant width and that plots 4 and 6 were integral to the scheme.
5. The proposal to preserve the claimant’s ownership through negotiation was expressly recorded and adequately addressed. The inspector accepted that the claimant had not shown interest in involvement in the scheme and therefore concluded that the order had been used as a last resort.
6. The reasons satisfied the standard in South Bucks DC v Porter (no. 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953. The compelling public interest involved in compulsory purchase did not impose a different or higher duty to give reasons. The claimant understood why it had lost, and no further issue arose concerning whether the outcome would inevitably have been the same.

Not stated in the judgment.