Structure plan — Objections — Introduction of new law — Whether Secretary of State obliged to give reasons — Whether applicants suffering substantial prejudice due to failure to give reasons — Judicial review — Whether order for costs against applicants justified — Applications refused
Landmatch plc made representations to the Secretary of State concerning the strategy being proposed for New-market, Red Lodge and Mildenhall area of West Suffolk. The proposed alteration to the structure plan for Suffolk identified the village of Red Lodge, where the principle of development had been established for some time, as the appropriate site for development of 1,500 homes. Landmatch applied for planning permission for its own development at Kennett. On December 3 1992, the Secretary of State gave final approval to the structure plan having considered the objections and the panel’s report. The letter made no reference to Red Lodge, to the alternative policy suggested by the applicants, nor did it give any reasons for rejecting the applicants’ objections.
Inter alia, under the “old law” proposals for alterations to the structure plan, as well as objections, were considered by the Secretary of State, who could call for an examination in public (section 35(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). In relation to any proposals he “shall give such statement … appropriate for the reasons governing his decision” (section 35(10)). Under the “new law” governing the alteration of structure plans, inserted into the 1990 Act by the Property and Compensation Act 1991, the Secretary of State “shall give the authority such statement as he considers appropriate for the reasons governing his decision on any proposals …”. Under the new law procedures differed depending on whether the structure plan was to be adopted by the local authority or approved by the Secretary of State: see Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Regulations 1991, which came into force on February 10 1992. The applicants contended that the Secretary of State had given no reasons in his December letter despite their representations.
Held The application was refused.
1. This was the first case to come before the High Court since the introduction of the new law by virtue of the 1991 Act. The question was whether the introduction of the words “give the authority” had the effect of relieving the Secretary of State from the requirement to give reasons in a case where he did not support the objections.
2. A statute was not to be taken as effecting a fundamental alteration in the general law unless it used words which pointed unmistakably in that direction: see National Assistance Board v Wilkinson [1952] 2 QB 648.
3. The court was not prepared to hold that the mere insertion of the words “give the authority” had produced such a fundamental change in the law: the taking away of the right to receive reasons, especially in controversial cases, would be a serious step and would require much clearer language. The words did no more than indicate a procedural requirement.
4. However, in the circumstances the court was unable to hold that the applicants had — in consequence of the omission to give reasons — suffered substantial prejudice, so that the court’s discretion to grant relief would be refused.
5. Moreover, the orders for costs made against the applicants in favour of the local authorities would stand.
Jeremy Sullivan QC and Peter Village (instructed by Russell-Cooke Potter & Chapman) appeared for Landmatch plc; Alun Alesbury (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; Nicholas Nardecchia (instructed by the solicitor to Forest Heath District Council) appeared Suffolk County Council and Forest Heath District Council; Simon Bird (instructed by the solicitor to East Cambridgeshire District Council) appeared for East Cambridgeshire District Council.
