The plaintiff challenged a compulsory purchase order, saying that the purpose of the order went beyond the statutory purpose.
Held: The provision of ‘houses’ must be taken to include the provision of ancillary facilities. Denning J said that he was satisfied that the local authority did not mean to restrict itself in its letting of the houses, it was to build on the land it was attempting to acquire, to those who were of any particular class. That did not however, invalidate the exercise of the powers: ‘The next question is whether the order is invalid because, in addition to houses being put up on this land, the co-operation proposed to put up nurseries, a health centre, a youth centre, shops, a public house, and so forth. It is said, and truly said, that in providing or contemplating the provision of those amenities, the co-operation intend that they should be available, not only to the persons living in the houses that are going to be put up in this estate, but also for persons from the neighbouring areas. It is said that makes the proposal invalid. This contention depends on the true interpretation of s 80. That section, contemplates that, providing the Minister consents, the land may be used, not only for houses, but also for shops, recreation grounds, and other buildings, which ‘will serve a beneficial purpose in connecxion with the requirements of the persons for whom the housing accommodation is provided.’ It is said if this proposed health centre, shops, etc, are in connexion with the requirements of other persons, in addition to those of this estate, that makes it outside the powers of s 80. I do not think that is a correct interpretation. The fact that it will also serve a beneficial purpose for other persons does not make it any the less a beneficial purpose for the persons in this housing estate. I see no reason for introducing the limitation which is suggested, and I do not think the proposed development is invalid.’
Judges:
Denning J
Citations:
[1948] 1 KB 34, [1947] 2 All ER 469
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Capital Investments Ltd v Wednesfield Urban District Council ChD 12-Feb-1964
The council set out to acquire two plots of land for development for housing. After the process had begun, it was decided that some of the land should be uised for educational purposes. A Land Charge had been served but the matter not completed. A . .
Cited – Barkas, Regina (on The Application of) v North Yorkshire County Council and Scarborough Council Admn 20-Dec-2011
The claimants sought to have registered as a town or village green land in Whitby which had been provided as a playing field by the Local Authority since 1934. The inspector had found that the use had not been ‘as of right’ as required by the 2006 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Local Government
Updated: 05 December 2022; Ref: scu.223477