Compulsory Purchase - Further Complications

The capacity of supermarkets to go to war with each other over sites appears to be unlimited. Both in Scotland and in England there has been significant litigation where either one supermarket chain or another has been seeking to develop a site in preference to a site proposed by a rival or alternatively seeking to stop a rival with a view to protecting an existing outlet [Click here to view the Supermarket Wars Article].

The most recent manifestation of this in the English courts reached the Supreme Court (which has replaced the House of Lords), involved Sainsbury and concerned use of compulsory purchase powers. The commercial issues were referred to in the Opinion of Lord Phillips in the following terms:- "Each purchased its land in the hope of being able to use it for the purpose of the development. Each shares the intention that its land should be used for the development. In resisting the compulsory purchase of its land each is motivated by commercial rivalry, not by any objection to the land being used for the proposed development".

The use of compulsory purchase powers by a planning authority for the benefit of a commercial operator has been an area of some controversy before the courts recently. In 2006 a Scottish case involving Standard Commercial Property Securities Limited and Glasgow City Council was decided by the House of Lords. That case in essence concerned a "fight" over a commercial development in Glasgow between rival developers, though the specific issue in question was whether or not the disposal of the property which was to be compulsorily acquired was at the best price that could reasonably be obtained as required by the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. That case was referred to in the Sainsbury supermarket case though it would appear that not all the Supreme Court judges had a common interpretation of what the outcome of that case was.

More recently there was further controversy in relation to the already controversial Trump development in Aberdeenshire where it appeared that a request might be made for the Council to exercise compulsory purchase powers to acquire land to facilitate the development to be carried out by the Trump Organisation. At least some of the land was owned by private householders who resided there. There was a debate in the Council Chambers on a motion seeking to make clear that the Council would not use its compulsory purchase powers in that scenario. The motion was not carried...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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