Planning permission granted to shopping centre — Application to quash Secretary of State’s decision — Whether consideration given to changes since first application made — Decision upheld by High Court — Court of Appeal allowing applicant’s appeal — House of Lords allowing appeal by Secretary of State
The Manchester Ship Canal Co applied for permission to develop land by erecting a subregional shopping centre to be known as the Trafford Centre, Manchester. Permission was sought for the centre with 129 unit shops, a number of large stores, over 10,000 carparking spaces and some leisure uses. The site was in an urban development area for which the local planning authority, Trafford Park Development Corporation (TPDC), were responsible. TPDC were in favour of granting permission, but eight out of 10 nearby local authorities (the applicants) were against. They applied to quash the decision letter of March 1993 granting permission for the development. That letter came at the end of a long process starting with an application in 1986. In 1989 there was a decision letter stating that the Secretary of State would investigate matters further before reaching a decision. In 1991 it was decided to reopen the inquiry, which took place in 1992 and lasted several weeks. There were further written representations from the applicants until the decision in 1993. The applicants contended, inter alia, that the Secretary of State had failed to take proper account of various changes, both in underlying facts and policy, which had taken place since the first inquiry in 1988 and thus reached conclusions which were perverse. The High Court refused the application: see [1993] EGCS 170. The Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal against that refusal: see [1994] EGCS 127. The Secretary of State appealed to the House of Lords.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. Under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, read with section 77(4), the Secretary of State had to have regard to all material considerations before reaching a decision, and then state the reasons for his decision to grant or withhold planning consent. There was nothing which required him, in stating his reasons, to deal specifically with every material consideration. He had to have regard to them but need not mention them all.
2. It could not fairly be said that the Secretary of State did not have regard to government policy current at the date of his decision, or to any changes after 1988.
3. The Secretary of State had a difficult decision to make in 1989 when he issued his interim decision letter. He had to balance the advantages of allowing development within an urban development area at Trafford Park against the disadvantages to other shopping centres, and take numerous other factors into account. By 1993 the decision had become even more difficult, since the balance of advantage had shifted. The question was whether it had shifted sufficiently to justify reopening the inquiry or refusing permission. That was essentially a matter for the Secretary of State’s planning judgment.
4. The decision taken in the exercise of that judgment was not perverse. This was not a case where the other known facts and circumstances pointed overwhelmingly in favour of a different decision.
Robin Purchas QC and Meyric Lewis (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, London agents for Tameside MBC) appeared for Bolton MDC and the other local authorities; Duncan Ouseley QC and Christopher Katkowski (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; Brian Ash QC and Paul Stinchcombe (instructed by Stephenson Harwood) appeared for Manchester Ship Canal Co; Susan Hamilton QC and Sebastian Head (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) appeared for TPDC.
