News

Spurs stadium CPO upheld

News

Jess Harrold

20 February 2015

Leisure

England, London

Justice Dove today rejected the claim by family company Archway Sheet Metal Works, which operates its business from two plots within the area covered by the CPO, near Spurs’ existing White Hart Lane stadium.

He rejected Archway’s application for permission to appeal, but it remains open to it to seek to persuade the Court of Appeal to hear its case.

Archway had attacked the communities secretary’s decision last year to confirm the CPO made by the London Borough of Haringey in March 2012, to acquire the land needed for the second and third phases of the Northumberland Development Project.

Phase one, a superstore development, was well under way by the time the CPO was confirmed. Phase two is the 56,250 seater new stadium, for which planning permission was granted in 2011, while phase three is a mixed use development including residential.

Archway claimed that the CPO was not lawfully made in the first place by Haringey, and that the club and the authority had carried out discussions over major changes to the development scheme – including an increase in ground capacity and additional residential development – which the communities secretary ought to have been aware of prior to making his decision.

However, dismissing the claim, the judge said: “I am satisfied that there was no legal flaw in the process that led to the conclusion that there was a compelling case of public interest for this order to be made.”

He said that, while substantial resources were being devoted to the examination of possible changes to the development proposal, this was “inevitably part of sensible project management”.

He said that they were “ideas that had important hurdles still to be surmounted”, and had a long way to go before they could be formulated into a credible planning application. As a result, he said that they lacked the “certainty or clarity” required to make a difference to the CPO decision.

He added: “They were more than a glint in the third defendant’s eye, but not much more.”

Tottenham Hotspur Football Club’s hopes of kicking off the 2018/19 Premier League season have been boosted by a high court judge’s decision to reject a legal challenge to the compulsory purchase order that will secure the land needed. Justice Dove today rejected the claim by family company Archway Sheet Metal Works, which operates its business from two plots within the area covered by the CPO, near Spurs’ existing White Hart Lane stadium. He rejected Archway’s application for permission to appeal, but it remains open to it to seek to persuade the Court of Appeal to hear its case. Archway had attacked the communities secretary’s decision last year to confirm the CPO made by the London Borough of Haringey in March 2012, to acquire the land needed for the second and third phases of the Northumberland Development Project. Phase one, a superstore development, was well under way by the time the CPO was confirmed. Phase two is the 56,250 seater new stadium, for which planning permission was granted in 2011, while phase three is a mixed use development including residential. Archway claimed that the CPO was not lawfully made in the first place by Haringey, and that the club and the authority had carried out discussions over major changes to the development scheme – including an increase in ground capacity and additional residential development – which the communities secretary ought to have been aware of prior to making his decision. However, dismissing the claim, the judge said: “I am satisfied that there was no legal flaw in the process that led to the conclusion that there was a compelling case of public interest for this order to be made.” He said that, while substantial resources were being devoted to the examination of possible changes to the development proposal, this was “inevitably part of sensible project management”. He said that they were “ideas that had important hurdles still to be surmounted”, and had a long way to go before they could be formulated into a credible planning application. As a result, he said that they lacked the “certainty or clarity” required to make a difference to the CPO decision. He added: “They were more than a glint in the third defendant’s eye, but not much more.”