The planning issues arising out of the siting of a motorway service area may be very different to those affecting the location of an out-of-town superstore, but, more often than not, the commercial scenario, in either case, will involve the parading of a number of competing sites in a strictly winner-takes-all contest.
In the multipartite case of Elmbridge Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2000] EGCS 129, which generated more wigs than the coronation of George III, it was accepted that an authority that effectively determines the outcome of a major commercial competition is duty bound to work to appropriate standards of thoroughness and fair play. The judgment, while couched in the language of irrationality and the denial of legitimate expectations, makes it quite clear that the Secretary of State had, on the facts, fallen down on both counts when going about the task of deciding upon the least environmentally unfriendly site for a new service area on the M25.
The case also affirms that a developer cannot get by with a skimpy outline application when the project is one calling for an environmental impact assessment.
PP 2000/112
The planning issues arising out of the siting of a motorway service area may be very different to those affecting the location of an out-of-town superstore, but, more often than not, the commercial scenario, in either case, will involve the parading of a number of competing sites in a strictly winner-takes-all contest.
In the multipartite case of Elmbridge Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2000] EGCS 129, which generated more wigs than the coronation of George III, it was accepted that an authority that effectively determines the outcome of a major commercial competition is duty bound to work to appropriate standards of thoroughness and fair play. The judgment, while couched in the language of irrationality and the denial of legitimate expectations, makes it quite clear that the Secretary of State had, on the facts, fallen down on both counts when going about the task of deciding upon the least environmentally unfriendly site for a new service area on the M25.
The case also affirms that a developer cannot get by with a skimpy outline application when the project is one calling for an environmental impact assessment.
