Compulsory purchase orders — Planning permission — Motorway service areas — Alternative site — Circular 18/84 procedure — Whether procedure appropriate where development to be carried out by developers — Whether department has power to develop service areas
In 1985 the Department of Transport published a draft compulsory purchase order and sought planning clearance through the Circular 18/84 procedure for the construction of a motorway service area (“MSA”) at Clacket Lane, Tandridge, Surrey. At the public inquiry in 1986 the Department appreciated that planning clearance might not be forthcoming because of inadequate tree screens and it made a further order to acquire extra land for that purpose in 1987. By a letter of December 15 1988 the orders were confirmed and planning clearance was given for the MSA. The trustees challenged these decisions on the grounds that: (1) the Circular 18/84 procedure was appropriate for development by a government department but not, as here, for a development to be carried out by a developer; (2) the orders should be quashed if the planning clearance decision was quashed, as they were made on the basis of the planning decision; and (3) there was no statutory justification for the second order.
Mobil Oil, who had proposed an alternative MSA site at Pedham Place Farm, Farningham, Kent, challenged the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment who, on December 15 1988, had refused planning permission for this site. Their challenge was on the grounds that the statements of principle in Seddon Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1978]JPL 835 had not been complied with.
Held The applications and appeals were dismissed.
1. Under the Highways Act 1980, section 239(4)(c), the Secretary of State for Transport had power to acquire land for an MSA “if in the opinion of the authority” land is required for the purpose, and he had an implicit power to construct a service area directly or through an agent. Accordingly, the Circular 18/84 procedure for obtaining planning clearance was justified. The second order, to acquire a strip of woodland as a tree screen, was within section 239(4)(c) as the land was needed for the MSA.
2. The Secretary of State had thoroughly considered the evidence as to the proposed MSA sites at Thurrock and Clacket Lane and was entitled to conclude that they were going ahead. He was also entitled to find that Pedham Place was too close to the Thurrock site and that Clacket Lane was strategically to be preferred. He had properly weighted the arguments, national policy and other issues against the presumption in favour of development at Pedham Place.
David Mole (instructed by Allen & Overy) appeared for the Trustees of the Titsey Foundation; David Keene QC and Duncan Ouseley (instructed by Boodle Hatfield) appeared for Mobil Oil Co Ltd; and Nigel McCleod QC, John Howell and Anne Williams (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Transport. The second respondents in the second case, Sevenoaks District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
