Appeal to Secretary of State — Inspector’s report — Decision of Secretary of State accepting report — Reasons for decision — Criteria for reasons — Conservation area — Listed buildings — Whether reasons adequate — Whether Secretary of State justifying departure from planning policy — Appeal by developers allowed
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the Secretary of State for the Environment ([1990] 3 PLR 50) from a decision of Simon Brown J (December 19 1989), who had dismissed an application by Save Britain’s Heritage, to quash the decision of the Secretary of State to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of the “Mappin & Webb” site in the City of London adjoining the Mansion House and the Bank of England. The proposed development was designed by the architect, James Stirling, and involves the demolition of a number of listed buildings in a conservation area. The inspector, who held the inquiry into the second of two schemes proposed by the developers, in a lengthy and fully reasoned report, recommended that planning permission, listed building and conservation area consents be granted.
By his decision letter of June 7 1989 the Secretary of State repeated the inspector’s conclusions and granted planning permission and the consents. The respondents to the present appeal, Save Britain’s Heritage, appealed against the decision of Simon Brown J, who had decided that the Secretary of State, in adopting all the essential links in the inspector’s complex chain of reasoning, had given adequate reasons in his decision letter. The Court of Appeal decided that the Secretary of State’s reasons were inadequate and contained no reasoning on the substantial issues. The Secretary of State and the owners appealed.
Held The appeals were allowed.
1. By singling out the landmark points in the inspector’s reasoning process, the Secretary of State had adequately demonstrated his substantial acceptance of the essential elements in the inspector’s judgment. Rule 17(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1988 was satisfied. The single indivisible question which the court must ask itself whenever a planning decision is challenged on the ground of a failure to give reasons is whether the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by the deficiency of the reasons given.
2. There was no error of law by the inspector in concluding that the policy in para 89 of Circular 8/87 — Historic Buildings and Conservation Areas was not an absolute one; there was a limited exception to it and the importance of any alternative use for a site must contemplate a replacement building. The Secretary of State’s decision could not be relied on as a precedent establishing a new policy that a listed building in Grade II may be demolished whenever the developer can show that he intends to replace it by a new building of greater architectural merit. The Secretary of State had decided that the presumption in favour of preserving a listed building should be overridden in the special circumstances of this appeal. By claiming that this was a test case the respondents could not put upon the Secretary of State an obligation to define the limits of the policy he was applying or deprive him of the right to decide the case as one which depended on its own special circumstances.
John Laws, John Howell and Nathalie Lieven (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first appellant, the Secretary of State for the Environment; Sir Frank Layfield QC and Charles George (instructed by Mishcon de Reya) appeared for the second and third appellants, Number 1 Poultry Ltd and City Acre Property Investment Trust Ltd, owners of the site; and Robert Carnwath QC and Alice Robinson (instructed by Gouldens) appeared for the respondents, Save Britain’s Heritage.