Bolton Corporation v Owen
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE WILLMER,LORD JUSTICE DANCKWERTS |
| Judgment Date | 11 December 1961 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1961] EWCA Civ J1211-4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 11 December 1961 |
[1961] EWCA Civ J1211-4
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From the Lands Tribunal
Master of The Rolls
(Lord Evershed)
Lord Justice Willmer and
Lord Justice Danckwerts
MR ERIC BLAIN, Q.C. and MR MICHAEL MANN (instructed by Messrs Simmons & Simmons, Agents for Mr. P. S. Rennison, Town Clerk of Bolton) appeared as Counsel for the Appellants.
MR D. GODFREY NHEIL (instructed by Messrs Hulton, Bailey & Co., Bolton) appeared as Counsel for the Respondent.
: This is a somewhat difficult case, as, indeed, are so many of these cases arising out of the intricate legislation relating to town and country paining. We are concerned with the County Borough of Bolton in Lancashire, and in accordance with the obligations imposed upon all local authorities by the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947, the County borough proceeded to carry out a survey of their area, and in further pursuance of Section 5 of that Ret, they then submitted to the Minister a report with a plan, defined in the section as a development plan, indicating the manner in which they proposed that the land in that area should be used, whether by the carrying out on their own of development or otherwise, and the stages by which any such development should be carried out. Subsection (2) of the same section proceeds to state the form and content of development plans. Thus, it is provided that the plan shall include such maps and descriptive matter as may be necessary to illustrate the proposals with an appropriate degree of particularity, and, further, it is provided that any plan may define the sites of the roads, etc., allocate areas of land for use for agricultural, residential, industrial or other purposes, designate as land subject to compulsory acquisition by any Minister, local authority, etc. land allocated by the plan for the purposes of any of their functions, and also may designate as land subject to compulsory acquisition by the appropriate local authority certain other land. Sub-section 3, to which Mr. Nowell also alluded, spates that a development plan may define as an area of comprehensive development certain areas, including an area which is shown as intended for the purpose of providing for the relocation of population etc. In addition to those statutory obligations, certain regulations were made pursuant to the powers in the Act of 1947, and Part II of those regulations is further directed to the form and content of development plans. I propose not to allude in detail to those regulations. I observe only that the development plan, which we have before us, makes it, I think, quite plain that it does not include a comprehensive development area map. That I can say with confidence, for this reason, that such an area map has to be of a much larger scale than the map called the basic map for county boroughs, which in of a scale of six inches to the mile and of which the map before us now is an example.
In light of what I have road, the development plan, which this County Borough promulgated and which in due course received the confirmation of the Minister, includes the basic map which I now have in my hand. The map makes quite plain that a considerable area is shown as being on the face of the map reserved for residential purposes, whereas other areas marked by a deep cross hatching arc shown as reserved for industrial purposes. Other areas again are shown for purposes such as schools and other like public services. As I have the map open before me, it will be convenient to indicate at once that the particular house with which we are concerned, No. 4, Wentworth Street, is in an area to the south of a road which I see is called Halliwell Road, an area which with certain exceptions (the exceptions being areas marked for industrial purposes and some other purposes) Is a residential area indicated by the vertical thin red lines which, according to the legend, so indicate. A lot of numbers appear over the plan, as well as letters, which in the course of Mr. Slain's opening were expounded for our benefit. In this case it is shown that the area itself covers some 250 acres and that oho average number of persons per acre is indicated by another figure. That, however, is not the whole of the plan, though I would observe that if the respondent's argument is right, it would follow that substantially all the area, which is marked by those vertical limns as being intended for residential purposes, would be liable to be the subject of notices by owners comparable to that which the respondent in the present case has given. In addition, however, to the plan, there is before us (and it is undoubtedly part of the plan) a document called a Written Statement and to that, and one particular part of it, a good deal of attention has, very properly, boon directed. On page 2 under the cross heading in capital letters "Major development proposals" is the Sub-heading "(1) Residential". Under that you have (a) Undeveloped land" and there then follows a statement, by appropriate description, of areas proposed for residential development which are at the moment undeveloped. There are altogether 26 such areas, and if you add up the estimated population (and if my adding is, as I hope, correct), the total number of persons to be housed in the newly developed area would be 18,300 persons. You then got the second subheading (b) Redevelopment areas". That is followed by this statement: "It is proposed to clear the following areas and to redevelop them for residential purposes in accordance with modern standards". There follows "Table S.3: Redevelopment areas (residential)", and there are then sob out 10 such areas. That with which we are concerned is numbered 6: "Area north of Thomason Park extending from Tyndall Street to Blackburn Read". After giving the grid reference it is stated that the estimated existing population of that area is 6,393 and the estimated future population that is after redevelopment in accordance with modern standards, 2,765. At the foot of that page I find this short paragraph: "Industrial promises and other nonconforming users within those areas will be relocated in more appropriate areas", and then an example are given. "The surplus population resulting from the redevelopment lower densities will be re housed in one or other of the areas listed in 1(a) above", and that in a reference to the undeveloped land and the tables there under, to which I have earlier alluded. As is apparent from the opening paragraph of this Written Statement, the plan also consisted (that is, in addition to the -Statement itself and the basic map) of a programmed map and two designation maps, and those I think I can pick up by a reference at page 10 of the Written Statement under the heading: "Programmed. The proposals are based on what it may be possible to achieve in 20 ycar-3 from the approval of the development plan" and then there is some statement about the rate of development and of the amount which the County Borough will be able to afford in the way of expenditure in doing such of the work as will fall upon them to do. The other plans include a plan which indicates that in the areas, of which No. 6 under Table S.3 is one, there are what are known as slum areas which will be subject to slum clearance operations, but this particular house with which we are concerned is not indicated as a slum dwelling or as being a slum area. I hope I have now sufficiently indicated by reference to the contents of the development plan the premise on which this case is founded.
I turn at once from the 1947 principal Act to the Town and Country Planning Act of 1949' By Section 39, sub-section 1 of that Act it is provided: "The provisions of this Part of this Act" (that is part IV) "shall have effect in relation to land which" and then I turn to paragraph (b), the only paragraph with which we are concerned, "is land allocated by a development plan for the purposes of any functions of a Government department, local authority or statutory undertakers, or of the National Coal Board, or is land defined in such a plan as the site of proposed development for the purposes of any such functions". In the second sub-section it is provided that if.' particular hereditament is comprised, for example, in the paragraph I have road, and if the person concerned also satisfies the qualities required of him by the four lettered paragraphs which follow, (as is admittedly the cane here) Then the person concerned, the owner of the property in question, "may serve on the appropriate authority a notice in the prescribed form requiring that authority to purchase that interest" as therein stated. That is what in this case has happened, for the respondent, Mr. Peers Owen, as the owner of No 4. Wentworth Street, the house which I have already mentioned, proceeded to serve a notice claiming that the authority must purchase his house, and who claimed to be qualified to make that demand by reason of the fact that his house foil within the description (b) In Section 39; sub-section (l) and that he in other respects (and, as I say, this is not in dispute) qualified under sub-section (2) of Section 39. In fairness to him, it should be stated that one of the necessary qualifications was that They had since the relevant date, that is the date of the confirmation of the plan by the Minister, made reasonable endeavors to sell his interest but had failed to get the price which it is said the premises would in the ordinary way command.
That notice having been served, the local authority, the County Borough, then proceeded under Section of the same Act to servo an objection, where a notice has been served under the preceding section, the appropriate authority within a limited period may serve...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Decision Nº BNO 512 2008. Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 22-12-2009
...Transport Executive (1997) BNO/206/1995 Halliday v Secretary of State for Transport (2003) BNO/129/2002 Bolton Corporation v Owen [1962] 1 QB 470 Elcock v Newham London Borough Council (1996) 71 P&CR 575 Sinclair v Secretary of State for Transport (1998) 75 P&CR 548 Burn v North Yorkshire C......
-
R Houghton and Wyton Parish Council v Huntingdonshire Distirct Council
...THE LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND 11 In one of the few previous cases which have considered statutory language in relation to allocations ( Bolton Cpn v Owen [1962] 1 QB 470), Lord Evershed MR referred at 479 to "the intricate legislation relating to town and country planning" and Wilmer LJ at 485......
-
R v Kent County Council and Another
...by the allocation and the service of a blight notice is appropriate." 17 In his statement of case, the judge, having referred to Bolton Corporation v. Owen [1962] 1 QB 470, a case to which the appellant also referred, stated that it was the phrase: "'For the purposes of the exercise of some......
- Elcock and another v Newham London Borough Council