Manoranjitham Saravanamuthu v Secretary of State for Communities, Housing and Local Government & Anor

On a challenge to a compulsory purchase order, the High Court reviews legality, procedure and reasoning rather than the merits of the confirming authority’s decision. An inspector must make reasonable inquiries into funding, viability and deliverability, but need not obtain independent scrutiny unless the evidence makes that necessary. A previous decision is material for consistency only where it is not distinguishable in a relevant respect. Acquiring authorities must pursue meaningful negotiations and reasonable efforts to acquire land by agreement, but need not achieve agreement before pursuing compulsory purchase. Compulsory purchase remains a last resort and is proportionate where the scheme cannot be delivered through an alternative arrangement.

The claimant challenged under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 the validity of an order authorising the compulsory purchase of her leasehold flat in James Riley Point, Newham. The order was made under section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to facilitate refurbishment, redevelopment and improvement works.

An appointed inspector confirmed the order after a public inquiry. The claimant alleged failures to investigate the scheme’s funding and viability, failures to consider relevant matters in negotiations, and excessive use of compulsory purchase powers because she offered a licence permitting the works. The central issue was whether the inspector’s decision contained legal or procedural error under section 23.

1. Claim dismissed. The statutory challenge was not an appeal on the merits. The court could intervene only for legal or procedural error, including failure to consider material matters, inadequate reasons or unreasonableness.
2. The inspector complied with the Tameside duty. The evidence identified the funding intentions, approved costs budget, principal funding source, delivery arrangements and projected timetable. The policy did not require independent verification of the costs or funding. The inspector was entitled to conclude that the information available was sufficient and that the scheme was funded, viable and reasonably capable of delivery.
3. The previous Dagenham decision was entitled to limited weight. Consistency requires an earlier decision to be materially comparable, and the claimant had not shown that the schemes were alike. The Dagenham scheme depended on commercial viability and private investment, whereas this scheme was a publicly funded, non-commercial project.
4. The inspector correctly applied the policy requiring meaningful negotiations and reasonable efforts to acquire land or rights by agreement. That requirement concerns the quality of the acquiring authority’s efforts, not a successful outcome. The inspector considered the history of the project, the claimant’s accommodation and the terms offered, and was entitled to find that negotiations had been meaningful despite the parties’ failure to agree.
5. The disputed history of property management and alleged breaches of landlord or housing duties did not require determination in the compulsory purchase inquiry. Those matters were disputed and did not materially bear on whether the current scheme was justified or whether reasonable negotiations had occurred.
6. The proposed licence did not provide a realistic alternative. The claimant continued to insist on reinstatement of the £1 million uplift offer, while the acquiring authority rejected it for value-for-money reasons. There was therefore no realistic prospect of agreement enabling the works without acquisition of the leasehold interest. Compulsory purchase was accordingly a proportionate last resort.