Claimant applying for permission to extend shopping centre — Consent refused following independent public inquiry — Decision quashed by consent because of failure to take account of regional planning guidance — Secretary of State exercising discretion not to reopen inquiry — Whether inquiry should be reopened — Sections 77 and 288 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990 — Rule 19 of Town and Country Planning (Inquiry Procedures) (England) Rules 2000 (SI 2000/1624)
The claimant had applied for permission to construct an extension to London’s only designated regional shopping centre in Brent Cross. Due to concerns about the impact of the development and the location of the site, the Secretary of State directed, under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that the matter be referred to him for decision. The question arose as to whether the shopping centre was a town centre for the purposes of the guidance provided by PPG 6 and RPG 3. Following a public inquiry, the Secretary of State accepted the inspector’s recommendation and dismissed the application on the ground that the shopping centre did not constitute a town centre for the purposes of PPG 6.
The claimant challenged that decision, under section 288 of the 1990 Act, and it was quashed by consent on the ground that the Secretary of State had failed to take account of RPG 3, which provided that, within London, the regional shopping centre of Brent Cross should be supported. The claimant argued that those words should be interpreted as meaning that the site should be treated as a preferred area for development. The Secretary of State did not reopen the inquiry, but sought further representations from interested parties, and decided to determine the issue on the basis of written representations.
Under r 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiry Procedures)(England) Rules 2000 (SI 2000/1624), the Secretary of State had the discretion to reopen inquiries in instances where his decision had been quashed. The claimant applied for judicial review of the decision not to reopen the inquiry, arguing that a reopened inquiry was, in this instance, the only reasonable option available. It submitted that the inspector had originally considered the matter from the wrong policy perspective, and that it had been denied the right to a public hearing into an issue that was fundamental to the proper determination of the application.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The Secretary of State’s decision not to reopen the inquiry was wholly justified. Under the Town and Country Planning Rules 2000, the Secretary of State was entitled not to reopen an independent inquiry so long as he had all the relevant facts before him. As a matter of common sense, it was clear that the reopening of the inquiry would lead to additional expense and increased delay, which the Secretary of State had doubtless had in mind when reaching his decision. Only if there were disputed issues of fact, or if new evidence came to light, would it be appropriate to reopen an inquiry. In the present case, there was no new evidence, and there was no reason why the Secretary of State should not reach his decision based upon written representations. It was not necessary to make a mandatory order for a full, reopened public inquiry.
Russell Harris (instructed by Nabarro Nathanson) appeared for the claimant; Timothy Mould (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
