Defendant drafting planning policy document — Claimants making written representations — Claimants requesting that public examination panel be reconvened to address their concerns — Defendant failing to reconvene panel — Whether claimants having legitimate expectation that panel would be reconvened — Claim dismissed
The claimant developers and housebuilders were members of the North West Housing & Land Consortium, and owned land in various parts of the North West of England. In July 2000, draft regional planning guidance for the North West (RPG 13) was published and representations were invited as to its content. The claimants submitted representations, proposing certain changes, in August 2002. They requested that the public examination before the decision-making panel — an integral part of the decision-making process — be reconvened. The defendant Secretary of State did not respond to that request, and, in March 2003, RPG 13 was issued in its final form.
The claimants challenged both the decision-making process and various of the policies contained within RPG 13. They specifically challenged: (i) policies SD4, UR7 and UR4 on the grounds of procedural unfairness and breach of legitimate expectation; (ii) the reasoning behind policy UR4; and (iii) policy DP1 on the basis of irrationality. The claimants argued that they had had a legitimate expectation that the panel would be reconvened, based upon guidance given in PPG 11.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
PPG 11 did not give rise to a legitimate expectation that: (i) the public examination before the panel would be reopened; (ii) the Secretary of State would hold meetings with the claimants; or (iii) he would adopt any procedure other than the one that he did in fact adopt. PPG 11 made provision for meetings or other consultations to take place in “exceptional” circumstances, but the wording of the policy did not amount to a specific promise that would give rise to a legitimate expectation: see R v Devon County Council, ex parte Baker [1995] 1 All ER 73 and R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545. On that basis, there was no provision for the reconvening of the panel in this case.
Public consultation formed an integral part of the decision-making process, but it was not the only basis upon which such decisions could be made, and the defendant Secretary of State was not committed to testing every important issue in that manner. No procedural unfairness had arisen, and the Secretary of State had correctly followed the procedural framework set out in PPG 11. In respect of policy UR4, his conclusions were valid, as well as being adequately and intelligibly reasoned. Policy DP1 could be, and was intended to be, read in conjunction with policy UR4, and, together, the two policies did not give rise to any inconsistency or irrationality.
Andrew Gilbart QC and Alan Evans (instructed by Hammonds, of Leeds) appeared for the claimants; Paul Brown and Jonathan Moffett (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
