Port authority sees first compulsory purchase order quashed by High Court
The Port of London Authority has seen the first compulsory purchase order it promoted quashed by a High Court judge.
The claimants in Grafton Group (UK) Plc & Anor v Secretary of State for Transport & Ors [2015] EWHC 1083 owned Orchard Wharf at Leamouth on the north side of the River Thames, near its confluence with the River Lea. The wharf is unused and vacant, save for a few derelict buildings.
Grafton Group, one of the claimants, owned 1.38 ha and a small additional strip. It hoped at some stage to develop the site for uses including residential, a boat yard and a waste to energy facility.
The Port of London Authority, however, made a CPO under the Port of London Act 1968 for the acquisition of Orchard Wharf and the additional strip. This was intended to bring the land into active use as a wharf, handling river borne aggregates and cement, and for batching them into concrete.
The second and third interested parties in the case, Aggregate Industries UK and London Concrete, sought planning permission for the operational development for this activity.
The London Thames Gateway Development Corporation, which was at the time the development control authority for the north side of the Thames, granted the application for outline permission for the part within its area.
The London Borough of Tower Hamlets, however, refused the application for full permission for the operational development. The ground of refusal related to the impact of the buildings on the character and appearance of the area surrounding what was seen as a prominent riverfront. Aggregate Industries and London Concrete appealed.
An inquiry was subsequently held into the CPO and objections, and into the planning appeal. The planning inspector recommended that planning permission be refused, but that the CPO should be confirmed.
The Communities Secretary accepted the recommendation. The Transport Secretary, the confirming authority for the CPO, confirmed the CPO. In both cases, the ministers adopted the reasoning of the planning inspector and their conclusions.
The claimant, Grafton Group, advanced a range of grounds of challenge in the High Court.
Mr Justice Ouseley ruled in its favour, finding that the Transport Secretary's decision on the CPO was unfair and should be quashed “for that reason as well as the lack of evidence to support it”.
At a subsequent hearing on 27 April Mr Justice Ouseley accepted Grafton’s argument that the proper course was to quash the Order as a whole.
Peter Village QC and James Burton of 39 Essex Chambers acted for the Grafton Group, instructed by Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co. Charles Banner of Landmark Chambers appeared for the defendant Secretary of State for Transport, while Russell Harris QC – also from Landmark – acted for the Port of London Authority, instructed by Bircham Dyson Bell.
