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

For retail planning guidance, “within an existing centre” is not confined to a town centre in the strict sense. It can include a neighbourhood or local centre, particularly where the London guidance classifies such centres as types of London town centre. Once a site falls within an existing centre for the purposes of the Caborn statement, the developer need not demonstrate retail need or apply the sequential approach, even if the development plan did not specifically address need. A decision-maker who accepts an inspector’s classification need not repeat the inspector’s reasoning on function and role or explain further why the need test is unnecessary. Reasons are assessed in the context of the planning process and its informed audience.

Wandsworth challenged under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 288, the Secretary of State’s decision to grant Tesco planning permission for mixed development, including a food store. The linked applications had been called in under section 77. The inspector recommended refusal and considered that need and the sequential approach applied. The Secretary of State treated Balham Hill as a neighbourhood or local centre and the site as within an existing centre, so those requirements did not apply. Lawrence Collins J dismissed Wandsworth’s application on 11 July 2002. The appeal concerned the interpretation of the planning guidance and the adequacy of the Secretary of State’s reasons.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the dismissal of Wandsworth’s challenge. Wandsworth was ordered to pay the Secretary of State’s costs of £15,700.
2. The expression “within an existing centre” in the Caborn statement was capable of extending beyond a town centre in the strict sense. It included neighbourhood or local centres. The inclusion of neighbourhood and local centres among the types of London town centres in RPG3 reinforced that interpretation. The court followed the reasoning in Kettering, [2001] JLP 686.
3. Once Balham Hill had properly been treated as an existing centre, the question whether the appeal site was within that centre was straightforward. The site’s allocation for mixed development and its relationship to Balham Hill, including the adjoining properties forming part of the centre, were relevant to that question. They were not relied upon to establish the status of Balham Hill itself.
4. The Secretary of State was entitled to accept the inspector’s conclusion that Balham Hill was a neighbourhood or local centre without expressly revisiting the inspector’s reasoning about its function and role in the community. The inspector’s further conclusion that Balham Hill did not satisfy a stricter town-centre test did not undermine his earlier classification. That further inquiry was unnecessary once the accepted classification was sufficient under the guidance.
5. It followed that the Secretary of State was not required to require proof of retail need or application of the sequential approach, even though need had not been specifically addressed in the development plan. The reasons in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the decision letter were legally adequate. Lord Justice Laws additionally observed that planning decisions are addressed to a tutored audience familiar with the policy framework, which is relevant when assessing the sufficiency of reasons.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Appeal dismissed; the Secretary of State’s decision was upheld: [2003] EWCA Civ 142.
• High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court — Lawrence Collins J dismissed Wandsworth’s application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on 11 July 2002.