On appeal from: [2009] EWCA Civ 835

The case concerned whether the defendant could make a compulsory purchase order in respect of the Raglan Street supermarket development site, owned by the appellants, in order to facilitate another development proposal from Tesco. In so doing, it took into account  that Tesco had promised to regenerate another site as part of its ‘planning obligation’.

Held: by a majority of 4-3, the Court found the purchase order unlawful, as the only “connection” between the proposed development on the Raglan Street site, and the development of the other site was that the Council was being tempted to facilitate one development because it wanted another development, or that Tesco was being tempted to undertake one un-commercial development in order to obtain the development it wanted. The claimed financial connection between the two sites was not such as to amount to a relevant matter.

For judgment, please download: [2010] UKSC 20
For the Court’s press summary, please download: Press Summary
For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII