Robert Jack Craddock & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport

For an objection to a blight notice under section 151(4)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the appropriate authority must establish, at the date of its counter-notice, a bona fide intention not to acquire the relevant land or rights. A bare assertion is insufficient. The authority must show that it has properly considered the question and that its stated intention is capable of being implemented.

Subsequent evidence may illuminate the intention existing at the material date, but cannot rescue a counter-notice that was not then well-founded. An additional informative does not invalidate a counter-notice if it is consistent with the statutory ground of objection. Temporary possession may nevertheless be relevant evidence when assessing whether the authority genuinely and feasibly intends not to acquire.

The claimants owned the Old Rectory, part of which was within the limits of the proposed HS2 Phase 2a works and therefore constituted blighted land. They served a blight notice on 19 July 2019. The Secretary of State served a counter-notice relying on section 151(4)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, asserting that he did not propose to acquire any part of the property, while adding an informative concerning temporary possession powers.

The claimants referred the objection to the Tribunal. They argued that the counter-notice was invalid, that temporary possession necessarily left permanent acquisition in prospect, and that the Secretary of State had not demonstrated a well-founded intention not to acquire at the material date. The central issues were the validity of the additional words and whether the objection was well-founded on 20 September 2019.

1. The counter-notice was valid. The additional words did not qualify or contradict the statutory ground of objection. They distinguished acquisition from temporary possession and remained substantially to the same effect as the prescribed form under regulation 16 of, and Schedule 2 to, the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992.

2. The material date for assessing the objection was the date of the counter-notice, 20 September 2019. The possible qualification recognised in Mancini v Coventry City Council was not part of that decision’s core reasoning and did not arise on the facts of this reference.

3. The governing principles, drawn from Mancini v Coventry City Council, Kayworth v Highways Agency, Charman v Dorset County Council and Head v Eastbourne Borough Council, were that:

   • the authority must establish its intention at the material date;
   • a mere assertion is insufficient;
   • the intention must be bona fide and capable of being put into effect;
   • failure to communicate a changed position beyond the counter-notice may affect whether the stated intention is definitive or reliable; and
   • later evidence may assist in assessing the original intention, but cannot cure an otherwise defective objection.

4. The Secretary of State had not demonstrated that his intention not to acquire any part of the Old Rectory was capable of implementation. The evidence concerning alternative sites, temporary possession and highway powers was conditional and did not address the claimants’ arguments concerning the long-term maintenance of ecological mitigation works, the proposed works at Plot 143, or the retention of Plot 321 in the Bill.

5. The objection under section 151(4)(b) was therefore not well-founded and was not upheld. The blight notice was declared valid. Under section 154 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State was deemed authorised to acquire the claimants’ interest and to have served a notice to treat on 1 April 2021. No general costs order was made, but the claimants were awarded the costs of responding to the extension application and reimbursement of the reference fee.

First-instance determination by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) on a reference under section 153(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. No earlier appellate decision is stated.