Bolton Metropolitan District Council & Ors v Secretary of State for the Environment & Ors

The House of Lords held that the Secretary of State's decision letter of 4 March 1993 contained adequate reasons and that he had had regard to the material considerations required by section 70(2) and section 77(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Rule 17(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1988 requires the decision-maker to give proper, adequate reasons dealing with the principal important controversial issues but does not require him to refer to every material consideration. The court rejected the contention that absence of express reference to some matters (including ASDA consent and shortage of industrial land for high technology) rendered the decision perverse or irrational. Section 54A and revised PPG6 were considered and the Secretary of State was found to have taken national policy into account.

The appeal concerned a planning application for a major sub-regional shopping centre at Trafford Park, Manchester, decided by the Secretary of State on 4 March 1993 after two public inquiries (1987-88 and 1992). Opponents (a consortium of eight local authorities and commercial interests) challenged the decision under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, arguing (i) that the Secretary of State failed to have regard to material considerations including changes in government policy (notably section 54A and revised PPG6) and changes on the ground (decline in retail activity, recent permissions such as ASDA and Shudehill, and impact evidence from Meadowhall and Merryhill), (ii) that he failed to give adequate reasons in his decision letter in breach of rule 17(1), and (iii) that the decision was perverse.

The procedural history was that Schiemann J at first instance rejected the challenges; the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the Secretary of State's decision; the House of Lords heard the appeal from the Court of Appeal and restored the order of Schiemann J.

Issues framed by the court:

• What is the correct legal standard for the adequacy of reasons required in a decision letter (relationship of rule 17(1) to the duty under sections 70(2) and 77(4))?
• Whether the Secretary of State had regard to material changes in government policy (including section 54A and revised PPG6) and to material changes on the ground since the first inquiry, and whether any failure to refer to particular matters warranted quashing his decision.
• Whether the decision was perverse or irrational in the light of post-inquiry material.

Reasoning (concise):

• The House of Lords applied authorities on the quality and function of reasons and emphasised that the decision-maker must give proper, adequate reasons dealing with the "principal important controversial issues" but is not required to deal with every material consideration or repeat the inspector's report in full. A reader must be able to understand the conclusions on principal issues.
• The Secretary of State did expressly refer to section 54A and to draft revised PPG6 and thus had regard to relevant national policy. He also made clear that he had considered the additional representations and the inspector's own assessment (including the limited weight the inspector attached to forecasting retail spending). The absence of a specific mention of ASDA or explicit discussion of the shortage of industrial land was not fatal because those matters were encompassed within broader paragraphs dealing with permissions and emerging experience and the decision letter enabled readers to understand the conclusions reached.
• On the question of perversity, the House of Lords held that the decision involved a difficult planning judgment and was not one to be characterised as perverse; the court would not infer irrationality when the available facts did not "point overwhelmingly" to a different result.

Relief sought: quashing of the Secretary of State's decision under section 288 and declaration that the decision was unlawful for failure to take material considerations into account and for inadequate reasons; alternatively relief for perversity/irrationality.

Appeal allowed. The House of Lords restored the order of Schiemann J and held that the Secretary of State had given adequate reasons within the meaning of rule 17(1) and had had regard to material considerations (including section 54A and draft PPG6). The decision was not perverse: it was a planning judgment that was open to the Secretary of State.

First instance: proceedings before Schiemann J (1993) 67 P&CR 333, who rejected the challenge to the Secretary of State's decision. Court of Appeal: allowed the respondents' appeal and quashed the Secretary of State's decision (1994) 69 P.&C.R. 324. House of Lords: allowed the Secretary of State's appeal and restored the order of Schiemann J ([1995] UKHL 26).