The Court was asked whether land had been appropriated for planning purposes.
McCullough J said: ‘I do not find the concept of ‘appropriation’ easy to grasp, since land which is ‘appropriated’ is already in the council’s ownership. More must surely be involved than a mere decision that land held for one purpose will henceforth be held for another. Otherwise, for example, if an authority decided to build houses on a small part of land it was holding for future light industrial development, the change of purpose would involve, indeed require, an ‘appropriation’, and, as a consequence of section 237, could materially effect the rights of any interested third parties. It seems to me that, at least in a case where third parties are known to have rights, an authority cannot properly embark on such a course unless it has good reason to believe that interference with such rights is necessary. I regard it as significant that a single provision in the 1990 Act, section 226, empowers an authority both to acquire land compulsorily and to ‘appropriate’ its own land. I see ‘appropriation’, therefore, as the equivalent of compulsory purchase of a council’s own land, and the same degree of ‘requirement’ or ‘necessity’ should apply in each case.’
Judges:
McCullough J
Citations:
(1997) 73 P and CR 70
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Adamson, Regina (on The Application of) v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council CA 18-Feb-2020
Appropriation was not in sufficient form
The claimants had challenged an order supporting the decision of the Council to use their allotments for a new primary school, saying that the land had be appropriated as allotment land, and that therefore the consent of the minister was needed.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government, Planning
Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.648251
