Wandsworth v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

The Court of Appeal dismissed Wandsworth London Borough Council’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s grant of planning permission for development at the former South London Hospital for Women. Central legal issues were the interpretation and application of Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 (PPG6), RPG3 (Strategic Guidance for London) and the Ministerial clarification of PPG6 given in the Caborn statement (11 February 1999) in relation to whether the site was "within an existing centre" so as to remove the need to demonstrate retail "need" and to apply the sequential test. The court held that the phrase "existing centre" in the Caborn statement could reasonably bear a meaning that included neighbourhood or local centres as described in RPG3 Table 5.2. Having accepted the Inspector’s conclusion that Balham Hill was a neighbourhood/local centre, the Secretary of State was entitled to conclude the site was within an existing centre and therefore that the requirement to demonstrate need and to apply the sequential approach did not arise. The court also rejected the challenge to the reasons given, holding that the Secretary of State was not obliged to repeat the Inspector’s reasoning and that the decision letter provided adequate reasons for the conclusion reached.

This appeal arises from a decision of the Secretary of State to grant planning permission for a mixed development (including a foodstore and flats) at the former South London Hospital for Women, Balham Hill, after an inquiry in which the Inspector had recommended refusal (on conservation grounds). Wandsworth, a neighbouring borough, applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the Secretary of State’s decision, contending that the Secretary of State had misinterpreted national planning guidance and failed to give adequate reasons.

Background and procedural posture:

• The site was the subject of two linked applications called in under section 77 of the 1990 Act. An Inspector held a public inquiry and recommended refusal. The Secretary of State disagreed and granted permission by letter dated 12 December 2001. Wandsworth sought judicial review in the Administrative Court (Lawrence Collins J) but the judge dismissed Wandsworth’s application on 11 July 2002. Wandsworth obtained permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal; permission was initially refused on the papers by Brooke LJ and later granted by Laws LJ for an oral renewal.

Nature of the claim and issues:

• Wandsworth sought quashing of the Secretary of State’s decision under s.288. The principal issues were (i) whether the Secretary of State erred in law by concluding the site was "within an existing centre" such that the requirement to demonstrate retail "need" and to apply the sequential approach did not apply; (ii) whether the Secretary of State was required to consider whether Balham Hill in fact performed the functions of a town centre (its role in the community) despite the Inspector’s findings; and (iii) whether the Secretary of State gave adequate reasons for reaching his view, given that the Inspector had taken a different line on whether Balham Hill met a stricter test of "town centre" role.

Court’s reasoning:

• The Court of Appeal held that, read in context, the Caborn statement’s reference to "existing centre" was capable of including neighbourhood or local centres and that RPG3 expressly lists "Neighbourhood or Local Centres" among "Types of London town centres". Thus the Secretary of State was entitled to accept the Inspector’s view that Balham Hill was a neighbourhood/local centre and to treat the site as "within an existing centre" for the purposes of PPG6 and the Caborn statement. Once that was so, the Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that demonstration of "need" and the sequential test did not arise in the way Wandsworth contended.
• On the reasons challenge, the court held that where the Secretary of State expressly adopted the Inspector’s conclusion it was not legally required to restate or rehearse the Inspector’s reasoning in detail in the decision letter; the reasons given in paragraphs 12–13 of the decision letter were adequate and there was no substantial prejudice to Wandsworth.

Other matters: The Inspector had recommended refusal on conservation grounds; that aspect is not pursued on this appeal.

Appeal dismissed. The Court held that the Secretary of State was entitled as a matter of law to interpret the Caborn statement and PPG6 (read with RPG3) so that "existing centre" could include neighbourhood or local centres; having accepted the Inspector’s finding that Balham Hill was a neighbourhood/local centre, the Secretary of State could properly conclude the site was "within an existing centre" and therefore need and the sequential test did not necessarily apply. The court also held the reasons in the decision letter were adequate and no legal error arose from failing to repeat the Inspector’s full reasoning.

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from an Administrative Court decision of Lawrence Collins J (dismissal of Wandsworth’s application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dated 11 July 2002). Permission to appeal had been refused on the papers by Brooke LJ and then granted on oral renewal by Laws LJ. The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 19 February 2003, neutral citation [2003] EWCA Civ 142.