Service area — Dualling of existing roadway — Prematurity — Deficiency of reasons — Issues also of need and access — Whether Secretary of State’s reasons on prematurity issue sufficient — Whether applicant prejudiced — Decision upheld on need and access issues
Due to proposals for realignment of A40(T) to dual two standard, the applicant put in outline planning permission for a service area to the second respondents, West Oxfordshire District Council. The local planning authority had identified the need for facilities to replace those which would be bypassed by the realigned A40. The inspector concluded that although the appeal site was acceptable for development planning permission should not be granted unless there was an overriding need; because the site was subject to well established principles restricting development in the countryside and at present there were adequate facilities for drivers. It was necessary to consider the question of need both in the short- and long-term.
The Secretary of State accepted his inspector’s conclusion stating, inter alia, that while the appellants had entered into an undertaking not to proceed with the development unless the trunk road improvements went ahead, and he accepted the inspector’s statement that it would be possible for the undertaking to be reworded in order to achieve the objective of preventing development in the absence of highway improvements, that was not sufficient to “dispel all the arguments about prematurity”. The applicants appealed.
Held The application was refused.
1. On the issue of prematurity, the court accepted the decisions of the authorities that the reasons of the Secretary of State had to be proper, intelligible and adequate: see, inter alia, Save Britain’s Heritage v No 1 Poultry Ltd [1991] 1 WLR 153 at pp 166-167, where it was held that a deficiency of reasons was only in breach of the Secretary of State’s statutory duties if the interests of the applicant had been substantially prejudiced.
2. The inspector had accepted that the present undertaking as drafted indicated that the applicants would not proceed without the carrying out of the trunk road improvement, but had added that it could be redrafted if necessary. The Secretary of State’s letter on the issue of prematurity, which merely relied on arguing that there was uncertainty, failed to carry the matter forward.
3. If he had taken a different view from his inspector on the issue of redrafting the wording of the undertaking, he had to give clear reasons for so doing. That could not be discerned from his letter where the issue lacked particularity and clarity. The applicants’ interests were prejudiced thereby.
4. On the issue of access, the Secretary of State noted that the layout complied with Department of Transport standards and that his inspector had found that the spacing between junction would not breach any recognised standards. However, the Secretary of State wrote that there was a clear distinction to be drawn between numbers of accesses and standards. The court could not accept that his decision in that regard was flawed.
5. The Secretary of State, in relation to the question of need, was entitled to find that: “there are acceptable service facilities for eastbound traffic on the A40 both in the short and the longer term” although traffic would need a diversion in order to reach those existing facilities.
6. Thus, in spite of the court finding for the applicants on the first issue, it found against them on the other two issues.
Andrew Kelly (instructed by McKenna & Co) appeared for the applicants; Timothy Straker (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; West Oxfordshire District Council did not appear and were not represented.
