Planning permission — Rival developers — Secretary of State’s power to call-in planning application — Published policy guidelines — Refusal to call-in one of two rival applications — High Court quashing refusal — Court of Appeal allowing appeal — Secretary of State’s reasoned decision valid — Judge wrong to go on to hear applications against inspector’s decision in favour of rival
In 1992 Claymount applied for planning permission for a supermarket on a site north of Towcester, Northamptonshire. Shortly after Morbaine applied for permission for a supermarket on a town centre site, which was designated for development in a local plan. Both proposals were for similar buildings and it was agreed that there was room for only one new supermarket in Towcester. Morbaine’s application was called-in for determination by the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, the Secretary of State refused to call-in Claymount’s application or to order a joint inquiry. It was stated that the council’s arguments were not sufficient to justify delay in considering Claymount’s application.
The High Court quashed the refusal of the Secretary of State to call-in Claymount’s application: (1993) 68 P&CR 525. The judge went on to hear and uphold applications under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by the council and Morbaine against the decision of the inspector in favour of Claymount. The Secretary of State and Claymount appealed.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. The guidelines for the recovery of cases for decision by the Secretary of State were: (1) residential development of 150 or more houses; (2) proposals for development of major importance having more than local significance; (3) proposals giving rise to significant public controversy; (4) proposals which raised important or novel issues of development control; (5) retail developments over 100,000 sq ft; (6) proposals for significant development in the green belt; (7) major proposals involving the winning and working of minerals; (8) proposals against which another government department had raised major objections; and (10) cases which could only be decided in conjunction with a case over which inspectors had no jurisdiction (“linked” cases) (CM43: Planning Appeals, Call-in and Major Public Inquiries): see R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Allied London Property Developments Ltd (unreported April 11 1990).
2. The Secretary of State did not have to give reasons for not calling-in an application. However, at an early stage in his letter of January 26 he had in fact given his reasons.
3. It could not be accepted that the Allied London case indicated the existence of an unofficial guideline: great stress had there been placed on the importance that the Department of the Environment attached to expedience being shown in dealing with planning applications, which was the precise reason given by the Secretary of State in this case.
4. Having decided to quash the Secretary of State’s decision not to call-in Claymount’s application, the judge was plainly wrong to go on to hear the appeal. It was pointless to do so and of no effect. In any event, there were no grounds which entitled the judge to reverse the inspector’s decision as given in his letter.
Richard Drabble (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; Elizabeth Appleby QC (instructed by Fishers, of Nottingham) appeared for Claymount Properties; Anthony Porten QC and Graham Stoker (instructed by Bird & Bird) appeared for the council; Anthony Dinkin QC (instructed by Bullivant Jones & Co, of Liverpool) appeared for Morbaine.
