A group of Watford allotment holders have won a ruling quashing the decision of the communities secretary to grant, for the second time, consent to transfer their land to form part of a major £350m redevelopment.
Ouseley J quashed the decision on what he said was a “narrow ground”, and now the secretary of state will have to consider for a third time whether the land at Farm Terrace should be transferred to a development vehicle set to carry out the Watford Health Campus project, comprising improved hospital facilities and housing.
The High Court quashed the first consent last year, but in December the communities secretary again granted consent, under section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925, for transfer of ownership of the land to the Watford Health Campus Local Asset Backed Vehicle.
In July, Jason Coppel QC argued on behalf of allotment holders Andrew Moore, Massimo Trebar and Robert Wakeling that, of 199 applications made under the section in the last seven years, only four have been refused.
He said: “What is different in this case is that allotment holders have fought back, and challenge the decision against them.
“They are backed by the National Association of Allotments and Leisure Gardeners. They see this case as a litmus test for the protection of allotments.”
However, the judge quashed the decision only on the basis that the secretary of state had been misled over the number of houses involved in the Health Campus scheme. He said that an increase in the original estimate from 600-650 homes to 750 had been proposed, and that, had the communities secretary been informed of this, it could have affected his decision on the key issue of whether the allotment land was required to make the project viable.
He said: “The fact that the housing figures were likely to be increased without the allotment site, by more than the housing envisaged on the allotment site, is significant and material.”
But, he added, the decision was based on a clear but implicit consideration that there had been no changes of materiality since the application to transfer was made.
He said that the secretary of state ought to have known of it, so that he could have the opportunity of reaching his own judgment on the point.
Moore and ors v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Administrative (Ouseley J) 31 October 2014
Jason Coppel QC and Hannah Slarks (instructed by Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors) for the claimants
Zoe Leventhal (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the defendant
Robin Green (instructed by Watford Borough Council) for the interested party
