Walker and another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another

Compulsory purchase order (CPO) – Consultation – CPO in respect of land required for city academy – CPO confirmed following inquiry – OPDM Circular 06/2004 – Whether CPO vitiated by inadequate consultation – Whether remedied by statutory planning process and inquiry – Claim dismissedThe second defendant council made a compulsory purchase order (CPO), pursuant to section 226(1)(a) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, in respect of land near Darwen town centre in order to provide a site for a new city academy. Funding for the project was to be provided by the government pursuant to an agreement between the first defendant secretary of state and several local authorities in the area. The siting of the academy was the subject of some opposition, including an objection lodged by the claimants, who held interests in some of the land. A local inquiry into the objections was scheduled pursuant to section 13A(3) of the 1981 Act. Meanwhile, the second defendants granted outline planning permission and reserved matters approval for the academy. At the inquiry, the issues raised included the lack of public consultation prior to the second defendants’ decision on the siting of the academy.The inspector conducting the inquiry noted that consultation had been undertaken in accordance with statutory procedures in connection with the grant of planning permission. She found that there was a compelling case in the public interest for the CPO and that any interference with the human rights of those interested in the land was proportionate. The secretary of state confirmed the CPO on the inspector’s recommendation.The claimants applied, under section 23 of the 1981 Act, to quash the CPO. They submitted that, inter alia: (i) in confirming the CPO, the secretary of state had failed to apply her own policy on consultation in OPDM Circular 06/2004, namely that compulsory purchase under section 226(1)(a) of the 1981 Act should form part of a clear strategic framework that had been “subjected to consultation processes including with those whose property is directly affected”; and (ii) the inspector had erred in her approach to the human rights issue.Held: The claim was dismissed. The question for the secretary of state had been whether she was satisfied that there was a compelling case in the public interest for the CPO to be made. The fact that a decision in principle had been taken at an early stage without adequate consultation was a relevant factor for her to consider in forming that judgment. However, she was also bound to have regard to all other relevant matters, including the fact that outline planning permission had been obtained after a proper procedure, and that all the arguments of the objectors to the CPO, based upon their underlying objection to the scheme, had been properly canvassed at the inquiry and considered by her. Consequently, she had not failed to have regard to her own policy in Circular 06/2004. Further, the inspector had taken the correct approach to the human rights issue. She had been aware of the nature, extent and seriousness of the potential interference with the objectors’ various human rights and had not under-evaluated them in reaching her conclusions.Andrew Fraser-Urquhart (instructed by Davies Gore Lomax, of Leeds) appeared for the claimants; John Litton (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; David Elvin QC and Graeme Keen (instructed by the legal department of Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council) appeared for the second defendants.Sally Dobson, barrister