Alliance Spring Co Ltd and others v. The First Secretary of State [electronic resource]
Alliance Spring Co Ltd and others v. The First Secretary of State [electronic resource]
- 2005
[2005] EWCH 15 (Admin), 18 January 2005. Planning permission had been granted for a scheme involving the relocation of a football stadium in North London. Some of the land was not owned by the local authority or football club and a compulsory purchase order was made, the main justification for which was that it was needed to achieve a comprehensive regeneration scheme. The claimants argued that this was not the case and that it was simply devised to satisfy the football club's desire for a new stadium. "Held": it was decided that the local authority was entitled to make use of the football club's desire to have a new stadium to produce and promote a scheme which it regarded as a comprehensive redevelopment of the area in the public interest. There was no precedent for a stadium-led regeneration scheme but the fact that the scheme was led by and to a large extent dependent on a private developer was no reason why it should be rejected. The secretary of state was entitled to conclude that the scheme was intended to achieve a comprehensive and desirable redevelopment of a deprived area and the claimants' application was refused.
ALLIANCE SPRING CO LTD AND OTHERS V FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S226
LONDON
[2005] EWCH 15 (Admin), 18 January 2005. Planning permission had been granted for a scheme involving the relocation of a football stadium in North London. Some of the land was not owned by the local authority or football club and a compulsory purchase order was made, the main justification for which was that it was needed to achieve a comprehensive regeneration scheme. The claimants argued that this was not the case and that it was simply devised to satisfy the football club's desire for a new stadium. "Held": it was decided that the local authority was entitled to make use of the football club's desire to have a new stadium to produce and promote a scheme which it regarded as a comprehensive redevelopment of the area in the public interest. There was no precedent for a stadium-led regeneration scheme but the fact that the scheme was led by and to a large extent dependent on a private developer was no reason why it should be rejected. The secretary of state was entitled to conclude that the scheme was intended to achieve a comprehensive and desirable redevelopment of a deprived area and the claimants' application was refused.
ALLIANCE SPRING CO LTD AND OTHERS V FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 S226
LONDON