Inner city area — Regeneration scheme — Inspector recommending confirmation of CPO — Inspector’s report entering caveat — Concern over economic viability of scheme — Financial feasibility not demonstrated — Secretary of State confirming order — Whether failure to pursue viability issue justified — Whether decision flawed — Judgment for Secretary of State
The Bristol Development Corporation (“BDC”) was a statutory body set up to secure regeneration of the Bristol urban development area. The applicant, Royal Life Insurance Ltd, owned substantial tracts of freehold land in the vicinity of Temple Meads Station and Temple Way. The BDC made a compulsory purchase order in respect of 25 plots of land in the area including the applicant’s land. A local inquiry was held early in 1991 by an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State and the applicant presented evidence on the ground, inter alia, that the scheme was not financially viable in itself. The inspector confirmed the CPO subject to a caveat entered in respect of the financial viability of the proposals. He stated in his report of July 1991 that a scheme “which is not viable is unlikely to be implemented and hence cannot achieve regeneration”. In his decision letter of January 28 1992 the Secretary of State accepted the recommendation to confirm the CPO for all but one plot of land but did not address the caveat.
It was sought, under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, to quash the CPO in so far as it related to the “order lands” of the applicant. The complaint was that the Secretary of State had not dealt with the question of viability of the projected development. The applicant cited the decision of Lord Justice Denning MR, in Ashbridge Investments Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government (1965) 195 EG 205 where he stated that, in confirming a compulsory purchase order, the court could interfere where the minister had failed to take into account matters which he was bound to consider: see also Prest v Secretary of State for Wales (1982) 81 LGR 193. On the question of whether economic feasibility of a proposed development scheme was a relevant factor, on the other hand, in Green v Secretaries of State for the Environment and Transport (1984) 271 EG 551, it was decided that where the economic consideration was only one of several issues, a compulsory purchase order could be confirmed on the basis of other issues, even if on the evidence before the Secretary of State he was unable to come to a firm conclusion on the viability of the proposal from a financial point of view.
