Applicants’ property blighted by proposed bypass – Commissioner finding no maladministration by Secretary of State for Transport – Whether commissioner’s reasoning inadequate – Application allowed
The applicants owned a property that immediately abutted the line of a road that Norfolk County Council proposed to construct, pursuant to the Norfolk County Council (Side Roads) Order 1990 and an associated compulsory purchase order. The applicants objected because of the impact the route would have on their house. A public inquiry was held. At the time of this inquiry, the highway authority held a discretionary power, under section 246(2A) of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, to acquire property that was seriously affected by the use of a highway constructed or improved by them. The inspector reported to the Secretary of State for Transport, who, on 3 June 1992, recommended that the orders be confirmed. In 1994 the applicants complained to the commissioner of maladministration on the part of the Secretary of State in confirming the orders without first seeking an assurance from the council that they would receive adequate compensation for the effect of the road on their home. The commissioner concluded, however, that there had been no maladministration.
Following a successful challenge to the commissioner’s decision, a second report was produced in July 1997. In this, the commissioner repeated many of the findings from the first report, but also recorded certain fresh findings in the light of evidence that had not been adduced earlier. That evidence included comments made to him by the permanent secretary of the Department of Transport (DOT). However, the commissioner concluded that the DOT had not overlooked the powers under section 246(2A), and that there had been no maladministration. The applicants sought to quash the commissioner’s second report, principally on the ground that it was impossible to ascertain how he had reached his finding that the DOT had not overlooked the existence of section 246(2A). It was submitted that the commissioner’s reasoning in respect of principal controversial issues was inadequate.
Held: The application was allowed.
There was no doubt that the DOT’s state of knowledge was a principal controversial issue before the commissioner. He made no finding as to whether any, and, if so, which of the officials in the department handling the applicants’ case were aware of section 246(2A). That was a crucial omission. It was immaterial that there were some officials within the department who were aware of the section at the material time. What mattered for the purpose of an inquiry into the alleged maladministration was whether those dealing with the case were aware of it. The commissioner’s omission was important, as the documents made it overwhelmingly likely that all those persons overlooked the existence of the power at the relevant time. Furthermore, the commissioner’s reasoning in relation to his finding that, in any event, the applicants’ suffered no injustice was also inadequate. Consequently, the Commissioner’s decision on maladministration was flawed.
Charles George QC and Barry Payton (instructed by Kenneth Beavis & Co, of Chelmsford) appeared for the applicants; David Elvin (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
