Claimant developer proposing motorway service area – Site within green belt – Inspector refusing planning permission for proposal – Secretary of State adopting inspector’s conclusions and recommendations – Claimant challenging Secretary of State’s decision – Whether Secretary of State giving sufficient reasons for decision – Claim dismissed
The claimant sought to develop a motorway service area (MSA) to serve the M42 motorway east of the West Midlands. It submitted three proposals (A, B and C), each of which lay within the green belt. It was common ground that only one MSA could be provided. A public inquiry was held into all three proposals. The inspector found that: (i) there was a need for an MSA along that section of motorway; and (ii) each of the three proposals would cause harm to the openness of the green belt, but, in the case of proposal A, the benefits would outweigh the harm. He reached an overall conclusion that the appeals concerning proposals B and C should be dismissed, but that further consultation and environmental assessment should take place with regard to proposal scheme.
The first defendant Secretary of State issued a decision letter, in which he accepted the inspector’s conclusions and recommendations. Accordingly, the appeal concerning proposal B was dismissed. The claimant sought to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision, pursuant to section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on the grounds that: (i) it was unreasonable to dismiss proposal B without first determining whether the alternative site (proposal A) was acceptable; and (ii) the Secretary of State had failed to give sufficient reasons for his decision, in particular in respect of important matters raised at the inquiry, including landscape issues and the benefits that would accrue to the highway system from the claimant’s scheme.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The inspector gave complete and thorough justification for making a decision regarding proposal B independently of a decision on proposal A, and that reasoning was adopted by the Secretary of State in his decision letter. The Secretary of State stated that he accepted the inspector’s conclusions and recommendations, which included the inspector’s overall conclusion. That was a sufficient explanation of his reasons.
Further, although the Secretary of State’s decision letter did not give reasons why highway benefits did not outweigh the harm to the green belt, nor did it directly address landscape matters, that was not to say that he had not considered those matters. Such matters had been properly dealt with by the inspector in his interim report. The Secretary of State’s reasoning was to be derived from his recitation and acceptance of the inspector’s report, and was sufficient for the informed reader: Save Britain’s Heritage v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991] 3 PLR 17 applied.
Andrew Gilbart QC (instructed by Hammond Suddards Edge, of Manchester) appeared for the claimant; David Elvin QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first defendant; the second defendants, Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, did not appear and were not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
