In Horada and others v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others [2016] EWCA Civ 169, the Court of Appeal has upheld a challenge brought by traders against a High Court ruling that the decision by former communities secretary Eric Pickles to confirm a compulsory purchase order for Shepherd’s Bush Market was lawful.
In confirming the CPO made by Hammersmith & Fulham Council for the redevelopment, Pickles had gone against the recommendation of the independent planning inspector. The CPO was intended to facilitate the regeneration of the market, which has been going since 1914 and was said by the Court of Appeal to be in need of serious upgrading. The inspector had concluded that the proposed development did not provide sufficient safeguards for the traders. A legal challenge to Pickles’ decision, led by James Horada, chair of the Shepherd’s Bush Market Tenants’ Association, was dismissed by Mr Justice Dove in the High Court. Mr Justice Dove upheld the CPO and rejected the claimants’ arguments that Pickles had erred in law in concluding (contrary to the inspector) that sufficient safeguards were in place to ensure that the regenerated market would continue to contain a diverse range of independent retailers. The Court of Appeal, however, overturned Mr Justice Dove’s ruling on the basis that Pickles had failed to give reasons for his decision.
Although the secretary of state disagreed with the inspector’s view that the guarantees and safeguards were inadequate he did not explain why he came to that conclusion. The secretary of state was required to explain why he disagreed with the inspector, beyond merely stating his conclusion that he did. The Court of Appeal stated that the secretary of state may have had perfectly good reasons for concluding that the guarantees and safeguards were adequate, but the problem is that we do not know what they were. In those circumstances, traders have been substantially prejudiced by a failure to comply with a relevant requirement. It was particularly important that a proper and easy to understand explanation be given by the secretary of state for rejecting the inspector’s recommendation.
This case again highlights the need to give reasons and how important it is that reasons for decisions should be explained in terms the citizens affected can understand. Citizens affected by a decision are entitled to an explanation of the reasons in plain English which the citizen can understand.
Martha Grekos is a partner and head of planning at Irwin Mitchell
