The council wanted to exercise its powers of compulsory purchase so as to allow them to acquire the claimant’s land to go toward the completion of the development of a competitor’s proposed supermarket. The claimant sought judicial review, saying that this was not a purpose for which the section could be used.
Held: The claimant’s appeal against the refusal of review failed. Though the benefits referred to did not fall with 226(1A), the council had a duty to consider all maerial considerations under 226(1)(a), and the benefits of the selected scheme were such. Under 226(1A), though the benefits of purchase had to flow from the land itself, the council could allow for the cross subsidy implicit in the development of the site as a whole.
The Council had made a compulsory purchase order of the company’s land in order to facilitate the building of a supermarket by a competitor, Tesco.
Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Sullivan
[2009] EWCA Civ 734, [2009] EWCA Civ 835, Times 21-Aug-2009, [2010] 1 P and CR 10
Bailii, Bailii
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 226(1)(a)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Wolverhampton City Council and Tesco Stores Ltd Admn 3-Feb-2009
Each supermarket company and the authority owned part of the site. The authority had granted each an outline permission for a new store, but had decided to allow the Tesco store to proceed. The claimant had at one point indicated that it did not . .
Appeal from – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v Wolverhampton City Council and Tesco Stores Ltd Admn 3-Feb-2009
Each supermarket company and the authority owned part of the site. The authority had granted each an outline permission for a new store, but had decided to allow the Tesco store to proceed. The claimant had at one point indicated that it did not . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Wolverhampton City Council and Another SC 12-May-2010
The appellant’s land was to be taken under compulsory purchase by the Council who wished to use it to assist Tesco in the construction of a new supermarket. Tesco promised to help fund restoration of a local listed building. Sainsbury objected an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2021; Ref: scu.371877