Clifton & Hotwells Improvement Society v Secretary of State for Transport

A statutory appeal against a stopping-up order is determined by applying judicial review principles. Under section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State must judge whether disadvantages or losses sufficiently outweigh the order’s advantages. A failure to meet transport guidance does not itself make a decision unlawful where the decision-maker rationally accepts relevant expert evidence.

The claimant brought a statutory appeal under section 287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a section 247 stopping-up order authorising the closure of areas of footway to enable construction of a visitor centre. Following a public inquiry, the inspector recommended the order and the Secretary of State accepted that recommendation.

The claimant alleged irrationality and failure to consider relevant matters. The issues included highway widths, pedestrian and cyclist safety, visibility from the central reservation, the safety audit and expert evidence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The claimant had to satisfy the ordinary grounds of judicial review in its statutory appeal.
2. Section 247 required the Secretary of State to decide whether the disadvantages or losses caused by stopping up the highway were sufficiently serious to outweigh the advantages of the order. That was a matter for his judgment: Vasiliou v Secretary of State for Transport and another 1991 2 All ER 77, at page 86F.
3. The inspector rationally considered the footway and carriageway widths, the central reservation, cyclist movements, pedestrian flows, accident information and the stage 2 safety audit. The scheme’s failure to meet every transport standard did not make the decision unlawful.
4. The limited visibility from the central reservation was a design shortcoming, but the inspector was entitled to accept expert evidence that it did not compromise public safety sufficiently to outweigh the planning advantages.
5. The Secretary of State was entitled to accept advice concerning the scheme actually before him. The appeal therefore failed.

First-instance statutory appeal in the Administrative Court. No earlier decision is stated in the judgment.