Planning approval — Crown land — Accommodation for asylum seekers — Home Office issuing notice of proposed development — Private contractor to build and operate centre — Whether development being carried out on behalf of Crown and Crown immunity thus applying — Claim dismissed
The claimants applied to quash a decision of the defendant approving, subject to conditions, the development by the Home Office of an accommodation centre for asylum seekers. The proposed centre was to provide full-board accommodation for 750 persons, together with services such as healthcare, education and interpretation. The Home Office was to retain ownership of the rural site, with a lease granted to a private contractor to build and operate the centre. An agreement enabling the Crown to lease the land to the contractor with the benefit of planning permission was entered into under section 299A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The inspector appointed to consider the proposals concluded that it had not been established that the development was appropriate for a rural area, but the defendant disagreed and approved the proposed development.
The claimants argued, inter alia, that since the development was to be carried out after a lease had been granted to the private contractor, the 1990 Act should be applied to the development in the ordinary way.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The Crown was immune from the statutory control of development because, except when expressly indicated, the Planning Acts did not apply to it: Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council [1990] 2 AC 580 applied. Since it was desirable for objections to proposed Crown development to be considered, and for any potentially controversial or substantial development to be properly assessed by an independent planning inspector, a non-statutory procedure had been established in Circular 18/84.
The important question was whether this development was intended to be carried out on behalf of the Crown. The approach of Forbes J in Hillingdon London Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1999] PLSCS 215 was manifestly correct. Where the Crown had demonstrated a significant degree of control over the work to be carried out, and had shown that its purpose would be achieved with significant benefit by the particular method adopted for developing Crown land, the conclusion that the development was developed by, or on behalf of, the Crown might be justified.
It was clear that the accommodation centre in the present case was to be constructed and operated for the purposes of the Home Office. The precise manner in which the centre was brought into being and operated, whether or not a lease was granted before or after any development, could not affect or detract from that fact. Accordingly, the development did not require planning permission: it was development on behalf of the Crown and was protected by Crown immunity. The existence of the section 299A agreement and the Circular 18/84 procedure provided the necessary protection, and the defendant was justified in rejecting the claimants’ arguments.
David Elvin QC and James Maurici (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard, as agent to the solicitor to Cherwell District Council) appeared for the claimants; Philip Sales and Sarah Moore (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant; Keith Lindblom QC and Rupert Warren (instructed by Berwin Leighton Paisner) appeared for the interested party, the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
