UK: Compulsory Purchase - Further Complications

Last Updated: 5 October 2010
Article by Murray Shaw

The capacity of supermarkets to go to war with each other over sites appears to be unlimited. Both in Scotland and in England there has been significant litigation where either one supermarket chain or another has been seeking to develop a site in preference to a site proposed by a rival or alternatively seeking to stop a rival with a view to protecting an existing outlet [Click here to view the Supermarket Wars Article].

The most recent manifestation of this in the English courts reached the Supreme Court (which has replaced the House of Lords), involved Sainsbury and concerned use of compulsory purchase powers. The commercial issues were referred to in the Opinion of Lord Phillips in the following terms:- "Each purchased its land in the hope of being able to use it for the purpose of the development. Each shares the intention that its land should be used for the development. In resisting the compulsory purchase of its land each is motivated by commercial rivalry, not by any objection to the land being used for the proposed development".

The use of compulsory purchase powers by a planning authority for the benefit of a commercial operator has been an area of some controversy before the courts recently. In 2006 a Scottish case involving Standard Commercial Property Securities Limited and Glasgow City Council was decided by the House of Lords. That case in essence concerned a "fight" over a commercial development in Glasgow between rival developers, though the specific issue in question was whether or not the disposal of the property which was to be compulsorily acquired was at the best price that could reasonably be obtained as required by the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. That case was referred to in the Sainsbury supermarket case though it would appear that not all the Supreme Court judges had a common interpretation of what the outcome of that case was.

More recently there was further controversy in relation to the already controversial Trump development in Aberdeenshire where it appeared that a request might be made for the Council to exercise compulsory purchase powers to acquire land to facilitate the development to be carried out by the Trump Organisation. At least some of the land was owned by private householders who resided there. There was a debate in the Council Chambers on a motion seeking to make clear that the Council would not use its compulsory purchase powers in that scenario. The motion was not carried largely on the basis that the majority of Councillors thought the position academic as there was no specific proposal before them to consider.

The issue before the Supreme Court essentially boiled down to a fight between Sainsbury and Tesco. Sainsbury owned 86% of a site while Tesco owned most of the remainder. Both companies wished to develop the site and accepted that it should be developed for supermarket purposes. No development could take place however unless the interest of one or other supermarket was bought out. That could only be done if the local authority used its compulsory purchase powers. Tesco owned another site about 850 metres away which contained a number of listed buildings many of which were in poor condition. The local authority had for a number of years been keen to secure regeneration of the site. Tesco did not think it was viable financially to develop the other site on its own but offered to link its scheme for the supermarket site with development of that other site on the basis that this would amount to a subsidy equal to the loss it might sustain in carrying out the development of the other site on its own. The local authority in light of that offer agreed to use the compulsory purchase powers to acquire Sainsbury's interest in the supermarket site. Sainsbury sought to challenge that on the basis that the local authority was taking into account an illegitimate concern.

Sainsbury's action was unsuccessful both at first instance and before the Court of Appeal. In the Supreme Court however they were successful albeit on a 4-3 majority. To complicate matters all 7 Supreme Court justices issued opinions not all of which are obviously consistent (even amongst those on the same side). It is interesting that Baroness Hale in a recent interview (quoted in The Times) questioned whether it was appropriate for there to be separate opinions from each Supreme Court justice. Other courts (notably the Supreme Court in America) do not customarily proceed in this manner.

There was a degree of consistency amongst the Supreme Court judges about the principles. The clear majority considered:-

  1. That the principles which applied to the determination of planning applications could apply (by analogy) to compulsory acquisition for development purposes;
  2. However the compulsory acquisition was only possible if it was within powers given by statute to local authorities. A number of the Supreme Court justices considered that given the nature of the compulsory purchase process a strict application of the relevant principles was required with the consequence that before off site benefits could be taken into account they had to be clearly related to the proposal for which the compulsory purchase powers would be used.

Where the diversions primarily occurred was in relation to the application of these principles to the particular facts of this case. Four of the judges held that the financial connection did not constitute a relevant connection to be taken into account and that was the position irrespective of the fact that the two supermarkets were in competition. Three of the Supreme Court justices came to a different conclusion.

The only Scottish Supreme Court justice involved in the case was Lord Hope. His perspective was that both the Tesco and Sainsbury scheme could justify the use of compulsory purchase powers by the Council. He was therefore of the view that when there was an equality of position and there was no issue of the use of the powers being illegal, it was legitimate to go on to look at other considerations. He made reference to the terms of the Standard Commercial Property Case and the fact that it held that a Council in deciding to sell land compulsorily acquired could take into account considerations such as those offered by Tesco. The land in this case was not being acquired by the Council to be utilised by the Council but acquired for onward sale. As he saw it, the decision about exercising the powers and then disposing of the land were an integral part of a common process and in that analysis achieving wider benefits might therefore be a legitimate consideration. In his view the approach taken by the majority could well make it impossible for certain urban renewal projects ever to be carried through. Urban renewal projects are an area where compulsory purchase powers are often critical to the site assembly process. He shared the view of Lord Phillips that it would be unfortunate "if a rigid application of the compulsory purchase principles to proposals of that kind were to rob the community of such benefit". He accordingly dissented from the majority view.

Baroness Hale was part of the majority and reached a different conclusion relying at least in part on the Standard Commercial Property Case. While she accepted use of compulsory purchase powers might well operate in tandem with the decision as to whom the land would be sold, it was not relevant in her view to rely upon the criteria in the sale part of the process to justify the first part of the process namely the decision to use compulsory purchase powers. She suggested to do so was putting cart before horse. In her view (and that of the majority) the decision to use compulsory purchase powers had to be justified specifically on the basis of the statutory provision and taking into account extraneous considerations such as the offer made by Tesco was not appropriate.

Presumably the Council will now have to rethink what they do in this case. It is not immediately clear how they can reach a decision given that the position between the two developments is relatively finely balanced and the benefits required to justify the use of compulsory purchase powers strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions will apparently flow from either supermarket being constructed.

More generally however this case is likely to make local authorities even more cautious about using compulsory purchase powers for the benefit of commercial developers. As Lord Hope apparently feared it may have an adverse impact upon urban renewal. Typically before local authorities agree to use such powers they want an agreement indemnifying them from the consequences. The outcome of this case may make such indemnities rather more costly in practice.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions