DATE: 01 Jan 2009
Application by Sainsburys for judicial review of the in principle decision by the Council to exercise compulsory purchase powers in favour of development proposed by Tesco.
Both Sainsburys and Tesco had submitted proposals for the redevelopment of a site in central Wolverhampton that was partly owned or controlled by each. Tesco proposed additionally to use profits from its scheme to secure development on another site that would otherwise be unviable. The Council decided that this was a decisive factor in its decision to choose which scheme to support and therefore resolved to exercise its compulsory purchase powers in favour of the Tesco proposals. Sainburys challenged that decision, arguing it was contrary to s.226 of the Act to take into account any benefits that would flow from the other site that was not being compulsorily purchased. The application was refused. It was held that although the well-being benefits that would be generated by the development of the other site did not fall to be taken into account under s. 226(1A), that provision was not seeking to identify all the benefits which might result from a development and the Council could have regard to those wider planning benefits as a matter of general public law principles.
