Appeal to Secretary of State — Inspector’s report — Decision of Secretary of State accepting report — Reasons for decision — Conservation area — Listed buildings — Whether reasons adequate — Appeal allowed
On December 19 1989 Simon Brown J [1989] EGCS 179, dismissed an application to quash the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment 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 be granted. By his decision letter of June 7 1989 the Secretary of State repeated the inspector’s conclusions and granted planning permission. The appellants, 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.
Held The appeal was allowed.
The Secretary of State’s reasons were inadequate: the invariable practice of the Secretary of State in repeating his inspectors’ conclusions in a decision letter creates no presumption that those conclusions are adopted. The fact that the Secretary of State expressed and identified the areas where he was in agreement with his inspector and stated his own views without making express reference to the differing view of the inspector in other areas is wholly inconsistent with the suggestion that the Secretary of State was incorporating his inspector’s reasoning into his own. The proper approach to the decision letter is to regard the conclusions of the inspector as forming part of the background against which the Secretary of State’s own reasoning has to be assessed.
The principal issue which the Secretary of State had to determine was whether the benefits of the scheme were sufficiently great to override the undoubted presumption in favour of the preservation of the existing buildings. He dealt with certain relevant matters. It was not possible to ascertain his decision on other issues of importance: the merits of the existing buildings, the degree of improvement the scheme will provide over the existing buildings in terms of quality, comparison of quality of existing and proposed, the implications for other listed buildings, whether the policy in para 89 of Circular 8/87 applied or not, the possible conflict with the Greater London Development Plan, and the possible application of the policy in para 90(d) of Circular 8/87. The Secretary of State’s decision letter contains no reasoning on these substantial issues.
Robert Carnwath QC and Alice Robinson (instructed by Gouldens) appeared for the appellants; John Laws and Nigel Pleming (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent, the Secretary of State for the Environment; and Sir Frank Layfield (instructed by Mishcon de Reya) appeared for the second and third respondents, the owners of the site.
