Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment; Brompton Securities Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MEGAW,LORD JUSTICE BROWNE |
| Judgment Date | 09 July 1976 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1976] EWCA Civ J0709-5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 09 July 1976 |
[1976] EWCA Civ J0709-5
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)
(From: Mr. Justice Forbes - London)
Lord Justice Megaw
Lord Justice Lawton and
Lord Justice Browne
Mr. DAVID WIDDICOMBE, Q.C. and Mr. GUY ROOTS (instructed by Mr. B.H. Wilson, Solicitor, London Borough of Camden) appeared on behalf of the Appellants the Second Respondents.
Mr. N. BROWNE-WILKINSON, Q.C., Mr. HARRY WOOLF and Mr. ANDREW MORRITT (instructed "by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Appellant the First Respondent.
Mr. KEITH GOODFELLOW, Q.C. and Mr. BRIAN KNIGHT (instructed by Messrs. Goodman, Derrick & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Applicants Sovmots Investments Limited.
Mr. ALISTAIR DAWSON, Q.C. and Mr. JOHN FURBER (instructed by Messrs. Cowan, Lipson & Rumney) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Applicants Brompton Securities Limited.
The judgment which Lord Justice Browne is about to deliver is the judgment of the Court.
This is an appeal by the Camden Borough Council and the Secretary of State for the Environment from a decision of Mr. Justice Forbes, given on the 16th July, 1975, by which he quashed a compulsory purchase order made by the Camden Borough Council on 12th September. 1972, and confirmed by the Secretary of State with some modifications on 30th August, 1974. The compulsory purchase order related to the part of the block of buildings, known as Centre Point, which consists of residential accommodation.
Centre Point is a block of buildings at the intersection of Oxford Street, New Oxford Street, Tottenham Court Road and Charing Cross Road. It consists of three main parts: (i) on the west, a tower block of 34 storeys, intended to be used as offices; (ii) on the east, a block known as the "Earnshaw Wing", fronting on to Earnshaw Street; (iii) the "Bridge Block", joining the tower block and the Earnshaw Wing, with a road running underneath it. The compulsory purchase order related to part of the Earnshaw Wing. We have before us photographs and plans which show the geography of the block very clearly.
The Earnshaw Wing consists of a basement car park; a ground and upper ground floor intended for shops and show-rooms; a first floor intended for show-rooms or offices; and a mezzanine floor intended for offices. The roof of the mezzanine floor is described as the podium. From the podium rise legs which support six floors, containing 36 maisonettes. Each maisonette is on two floors, the kitchen and living room on the lower floor and two bedrooms and a bathroom on the upper floor; there are therefore three sets of twelve maisonettes, one above the other. In the Earnshaw Wing there are two staircases, one at the northern end and the other at the southern. The northern staircase below the podium level is orwould be a means of access to the show-room and office floors, but above that is intended only as an emergency fire escape from the maisonettes. Conversely, the southern staircase is intended to be a means of access to the maisonettes, but below podium level could also be used as a fire escape from the show-room or office floors. At the south end, there are two passenger lifts which serve only the maisonettes. At the south end, there is also a goods lift which serves the upper part of the shops and emerges on to the podium. The system of refuse disposal designed for the maisonettes is that each maisonette has a built-in refuse chute embodied in the building at the north end. The design is that refuse put down these chutes is intended to fall into a receptacle at podium level (at the north end), to be wheeled across to the goods lift at the south end and then taken down by the goods lift to street level for disposal.
The freeholders of Centre Point are the Greater London Council. They granted a lease of the whole of the site to Sovmots Investments Ltd. for 150 years from 29th September, 1960. The building was completed in the winter of 1966/1967 but up to the last day of the public enquiry (8th February, 1974) none of the maisonettes (and very little of the rest of the complex) was occupied. We are told that now all the maisonettes are occupied, though we understand by short-term tenants. On 23rd November, 1973 (between the making of the compulsory purchase order by Camden and its confirmation by the Secretary of State) Sovmots granted a sub-lease of the 36 maisonettes to Brompton Securities Ltd. for 45 years from 29th September, 1973. The compulsory purchase order relates to the 36 maisonettes and the passenger lifts and parts of the staircases giving access thereto.
Sovmots objected to the compulsory purchase order. The Secretary of State ordered a public local enquiry to be held, and appointed to act as Inspector Mr. Peter Boydell, Q.C., sitting with Mr. W.J.H. Oswald, F.R.C.I.S., as Assessor. The enquiry was held on 13days in January and February, 1974, and the Inspector reported on 28th March, 1974. He recommended that the Order should he confirmed with some modifications to the description of the land and to the map. By his decision letter dated 30th April, 1974, the Secretary of State accepted the Inspector's findings of fact and his conclusions and recommendations and confirmed the Order, subject to the modifications suggested by the Inspector. The compulsory purchase order, as amended and confirmed, is as follows: "The Council of the London Borough of Camden (hereinafter called 'the Corporation') hereby make the following Order: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Order the Corporation are under section 97 of the Housing Act, 1957, hereby authorised to purchase compulsorily for the purpose of providing housing accommodation in accordance with Part V of the Housing Act, 1957, the land which is described in the Schedule hereto and is delineated and coloured pink on the map…." We need not read the rest of the Order.
The Schedule to the Order as originally made by Camden was as follows: under column 2, "Description and situation of the land", "36 residential maisonettes on the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth floors forming part of and adjacent to the east side of the property known as Centre Point, London, W.C.1. Together with such parts of the building which are necessary for access thereto and the maintenance thereof". Then the "Owners or reputed owners" and the "Lessees or reputed lessees" are set out.
On confirmation, the Secretary of State amended the "Description and situation of the land" as described in column 2 as follows. "36 residential maisonettes on the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth floors forming part of and adjacent to the east side of the property known as Centre Point, London, W.C.1, together with (i) the corridors giving access to the said maisonettes (ii) the entrance hall staircase and lifts at the south end and (iii) the staircase above podium level at the north end". It will be seenthat the amendment related to the last three or four lines of that description. The map was also amended, and as amended simply showed what one may call the shadow of the maisonettes and the lifts as they would be on the ground. The original map showed a larger area, including parts of the adjoining streets.
In the course of the enquiry, Camden submitted a document headed "Note of Ancillary Rights and Obligations for inclusion in the Conveyance" (Document CBC 2A, page 241). Part of this document lists various "rights" which Camden "will acquire" and Part lists various rights which Camden "will reserve….in favour of the tenants or occupiers of the remainder of the building". It is common ground that this document is not part of the Order and has no statutory force.
Sovmots and Brompton applied to the court to quash the Order as confirmed. The Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, is incorporated by section 97 (1) of the Seventh Schedule to the Housing Act, 1957; this application was made under paragraph 15 to the First Schedule to the 1946 Act and Order 94 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Paragraph 15 of the First Schedule to the 1946 Act provides as follows: "If any person aggrieved by a compulsory purchase order desires to question the validity thereof, or of any provision contained therein on the ground that the authorisation of a compulsory purchase thereby granted is not empowered to be granted under this Act or" (the Housing Act, 1957, in the present case) "or if any person aggrieved by a compulsory purchase order…desires to question the validity thereof on the ground that any requirement of this Act or of any regulation made thereunder has not been complied with in relation to the order….he may, within six weeks from the date on which notice of the confirmation or making of the order….is first published in accordance with the provisions of this Schedule in that behalf, make an application to the High Court,and on any such application the Court….(b) if satisfied that the authorisation granted by the compulsory purchase order is not empowered to be granted as aforesaid, or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by any requirement of this Schedule or of any regulation made thereunder not having been complied with, may quash...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wheeler v JJ Saunders Ltd
...is how much wider? There are other authorities on the topic, including the decision of the House of Lords in Sovmots Investment Limited v. The Secretary of State for the Environment (1979) AC 144, p. 168, where Lord Wilberforce 16"Easements…..necessary to the reasonable enjoyment of the pro......
-
J &O Operators Ltd, Beverley Wong, Eloise Mulligan and Grace Wong v Kingston & St. Andrew Corporation
... ... Let me state, en passant, that it does not seem to me that the ... in argument were Wheeldon v Burrows, and Sovmots v Secretary of State for the Environment, n Securities Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment ... ...
-
Akumah v Hackney London Borough Council
...term included flats. The wording of the definition, as Lord Wilberforce observed of its predecessor provision in Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1979] AC 144, is a clear echo of the first rule in Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) 12 Ch D 31. It reflects the seconda......
-
Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment; Brompton Securities Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment
...gently refurbished version of them. To see this it is only necessary to quote two passages from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, ( [1976] 3 W.L.R. 597) which the respondents seek to uphold: 1. "Although no question of common intention arises, one must construe the compulsory purchase o......
-
Planning Permission
...v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2010] EWHC 1845 (Admin). 94 Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1977] QB 411; Niarchos (London) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1977) 35 P & CR 259; Sosmo Trust Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment a......
-
Planning Permission
...v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2010] EWHC 1845 (Admin). 70 Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1977] QB 411; Niarchos (London) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1977) 35 P & CR 259; Sosmo Trust Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment a......