R (Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton City Council
| R (Sainsbury’s Ltd) v Wolverhampton CC | |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Citation(s) | [2010] UKSC 20 |
| Keywords | |
| Land, compulsory purchase | |
R (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton CC [2010] UKSC 20 is an English land law case, concerning the power of a local council to make a compulsory purchase order.
Facts
Wolverhampton City Council approved in principle a compulsory purchase order ("CPO") under section 226(1)(a) of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 of land owned by Sainsbury’s a Raglan Street site to facilitate a development of the site by Tesco. The Council took into account Tesco's commitment to develop the Royal Hospital site. Sainsbury’s contended it was illegitimate to have regard to Tesco’s commitment to regenerate the site.
Judgment
Lord Collins held that the council had taken into account an irrelevant factor in deciding whether to make a compulsory purchase order. It should not have considered the financial benefit from Tesco to do this.
Lord Walker said the following.
| “ | 81. [...] Economic regeneration brought about by urban redevelopment is no doubt a public good, but “private to private” acquisitions by compulsory purchase may also produce large profits for powerful business interests, and courts rightly regard them as particularly sensitive....
[...] 84. But the exercise of powers of compulsory acquisition, especially in a “private to private” acquisition, amounts to a serious invasion of the current owner’s proprietary rights. The local authority has a direct financial interest in the matter, and not merely a general interest (as local planning authority) in the betterment and well-being of its area. A stricter approach is therefore called for. As Lord Collins says in his conclusions at para 71 of his judgment, a real (rather than a fanciful or remote) connection must be shown between any off-site benefits and the proposed redevelopment for which a compulsory purchase order is proposed. |
” |
Lady Hale said the following.
| “ | 92. It cannot be proper to deprive a person compulsorily of his land in order to secure something which will not be allowed to take place. Under the new version of section 226(1), the permissibility of some development (together with a reasonable prospect of its actually taking place) should be a sine qua non for compulsory acquisition in order to "facilitate" it. The question does not arise in this case, because we are agreed that the extraneous benefit to the Royal Hospital site would not be relevant to the grant of planning permission for this site, any more than it is relevant to the compulsory purchase decision. | ” |
Lord Mance agreed.
Lord Phillips, Lord Hope and Lord Brown dissented.
See also
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||