Karen Holohan, R (on the application of) v High Speed Two Limited (HS2 Ltd)

A public decision-maker may refuse to grant or consider a proposed lease where the decision is based on relevant professional evidence, financial considerations, statutory responsibilities and the need to retain future control of land. A claimant cannot require the decision-maker to obtain or accept an additional survey where existing professional surveys provide an adequate basis for the decision. Planning duties concerning listed buildings apply to the statutory planning decisions for which they are imposed and do not automatically govern a separate leasing decision. Interim relief is unavailable where permission for judicial review is refused and no arguable ground is shown.

The claimants sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings concerning the refusal, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport, to consider leasing Stanthorne Hall Farm to them or allowing them to enter the property to conduct a survey. They also sought interim mandatory relief, disclosure of a property condition report, and a protective costs order.

The property had been acquired in connection with the HS2 scheme. The decision-maker relied on professional reports identifying substantial works required to make it safe and lettable, the likely costs and returns, the need to preserve flexibility over land required for the project, and the Secretary of State’s landlord duties. The central issues were whether the decision involved irrelevant considerations, failure to consider relevant matters, irrationality, procedural unfairness or breach of planning duties.

1. Permission refused. The claim was entirely without foundation and disclosed no arguable ground for judicial review.
2. The decision-maker was entitled to rely on existing professional surveys and reports. He was not legally required to accept the claimants’ proposal, to permit an independent survey, or to treat an FRI lease as appropriate. The reasons given were clear and cogent and addressed the property’s condition, the cost of necessary works, likely tenant income, value for money, landlord safety obligations and the need to retain control of land pending decisions about HS2.
3. There was no failure to consider relevant matters and no reliance on irrelevant information. The refusal was rational because the property was not lettable without significant works, the Secretary of State would otherwise risk breaching landlord duties, and retaining flexibility over the property was a legitimate consideration.
4. There was no procedural unfairness or apparent bias. The decision-maker explained the decision as fully as commercial sensitivities permitted. No legitimate expectation arose that the property would be offered on an FRI basis.
5. The National Planning Policy Framework and section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 concerned planning decisions and were not directly material to the separate decision about leasing the property. Section 16 was not breached.
6. Interim relief and disclosure were refused. Disclosure of the property condition report was subject to alternative statutory processes involving the Information Commissioner, and judicial review was a remedy of last resort. The protective costs order was unnecessary; in any event, the proceedings did not satisfy the applicable public-interest criteria and concerned the claimants’ private interest in obtaining a lease. The claimants were directed to be given an opportunity to comment on the draft order.