Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

R (Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd) v Wolverhampton City Council

The Times Law Reports Cited authorities 10 Cited in 14 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date31 July 2009
Neutral Citation[2009] EWCA Civ 835
Date31 July 2009
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)

Court of Appeal

Before Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Sullivan

Regina (Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd)
and
Wolverhampton City Council
Council can consider benefit of other site

A planning authority considering exercising its compulsory purchase powers could have regard to wider benefits, which might include benefits deriving from the redevelopment of a site not within the proposed development itself.

The Court of Appeal so stated, inter alia, in a reserved judgment dismissing the appeal of the claimant, Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd, from the dismissal by Mr Justice EliasUNK ([2009] EWHC 134 (Admin)) of its application for judicial review of the decision of the defendant, Wolverhampton Cit y Council, on January 30, 2008, to give approval in principle to the making of a compulsory purchase order under section 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of land owned by Sainsbury'2. Section 226(1)(a) of the 1990 Act, as substituted by section 99(2)(b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, authorised the council to make a compulsory purchase order in respect of any land if it thought that the acquisition would facilitate the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement on or in relation to the land.

Section 226(1A), as inserted by section 99(3) of the 2004 Act, provided that a local authority was not to exercise such power unless it thought that the development, redevelopment or improvement was likely to contribute to the achievement of any one or more of the following objects: the promotion o r improvement of the economic, social or environmental well being of their area.

There were rival redevelopment proposals before the authority, one from the claimant and the other from the interested party, Tesco Stores Ltd, which owned certain land at a different site, known as the RHS site, as well as part of the proposed main site.

In considering which of the two rival schemes should be advantaged by exercise of its compulsory purchase powers, the authority had regard to an internal report which, in looking to well-being benefits for the purposes of section 226(1A), had considered the benefits resulting by redevelopment of th e RHS site.

The council concluded that its compulsory purchase powers should be exercised to facilitate the Tesco scheme.

The judge held that: (i) benefits applicable to the RHS site did not fall within section 226(1A); but (ii) that the council was in any event...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT