Issue of certificate — Land to be acquired for trunk road — Secretary of State for Environment deciding issue on basis of written evidence — Refusal to hold inquiry — Exchange land stated to be equally advantageous to public as order land — Application of quash certificate — Whether refusal irrational — Secretary of State’s decision upheld
The Department of Transport applied to the Secretary of State for the Environment for a certificate under section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 regarding an area of common land adjacent to Quartermile Lane and forming part of Hackney Marsh in the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The application was for land proposed to be compulsorily purchased under the provisions of the A12 Trunk Road CPO.
The exchange land was to be not less in area and equally advantageous to persons entitled to rights of common and to the public. The Secretary of State for the Environment issued the certificate on July 23 1992 on the basis of written representations. No public inquiry was held despite representations calling for one. In his decision letter, he stated that the relevant points raised by objectors had been answered by the Department of Transport and that public inquiries had been held in 1989 and 1990 to hear objections concerning the draft order for the trunk road.
The council applied to quash the certificate and the CPO on the grounds, inter alia, that the refusal to hold an inquiry was unreasonable and/or in breach of natural justice. Under section 19(2)(b) of the Act a certificate can be issued “after causing a public local inquiry to be held in any case where it appears … to be expedient so to do having regard to any representations or objections made”.
Held The application was refused.
1. Section 19(2)(b) conferred a wide discretion on the Secretary of State and he only was to institute a public inquiry where it appeared to him expedient to do so.
2. The Secretary of State had made plain in his letter the reasons for his refusal and he stated that in his consideration there was no issue on which he needed to seek further information or representations. The relevant points raised by the objectors had already been answered by the Department of Transport.
3. Each case was to be determined on its particular circumstances and the decision was for the minister concerned: see Binney v Secretary of State for the Environment [1984] JPL 871; and Shorman v Secretary of State for the Environment [1977] JPL 98.
4. The applicants were required to show non-compliance with the rules or substantial prejudice and none had been shown.
5. With regard to the submissions that the minister had acted unreasonably and in breach of natural justice, it was plain from his decision letter that he had had the principle of reasonableness clearly in mind.
Richard Langham (instructed by the solicitor to Waltham Forest London Borough Council) appeared for the applicants; Stephen Richards and David Holgate (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment.
