Elmbridge Borough Council and Residents and Landowners' Group (Elmbridge) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (First Respondent) Swayfields Ltd (Second Respondent)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE RICHARDS |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 2000 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] EWHC J1110-1 |
| Docket Number | CO/4726/1999 CO/4744/1999 CO/4752/1999 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 10 November 2000 |
[2000] EWHC J1110-1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Mr Justice Richards
CO/4726/1999
CO/4743/1999
CO/4744/1999
CO/4752/1999
COUNSEL: (1) Mr A Porten QC and Mr S Bird instructed by Sharpe Pritchard Solicitors (For the Applicants)
Mr P Sales and Mr J Coppel instructed by The Treasury Solicitors (For the First Respondent)
Mr A Gilbart QC and Mr D Manley instructed by Hammond Suddards (For the Second Respondent)
(2) Mr A.T Smith QC and Miss N Sharif instructed by Totalfina Legal Department (For the Applicant)
Mr P Sales and Mr J Coppel instructed by The Treasury Solicitors (For the First Respondent)
Mr R Warren instructed by Runnymede Borough Council (For the Second Respondent)
Mr A Gilbart QC and Mr D Manley instructed by Hammond Suddards Solicitors (For the Third Respondent)
(3) Mr A.T Smith QC and Miss N Sharif instructed by Totalfina Legal Department (For the Applicants)
Mr P Sales and Mr J Coppel instructed by The Treasury Solicitors (For the First Respondents)
Mr M Druce instructed by Runnymede Borough Council (For the Second Respondent)
Mr A Gilbart QC and Mr D Manley instructed by Hammond Suddards Solicitors (For the Third Respondents)
(4) Mr D Elvin QC instructed by Marrons Solicitors (For the Applicant)
Mr P Sales and Mr J Coppel instructed by The Treasury Solicitors (For the First Respondents)
A change in government policy in 1992 led to a number of proposals from the private sector to develop Motorway Service Areas ("MSAs") on the western sector of the M25 between Clacket Lane and South Mimms and on the eastern sector of the M4. Eight such proposals were the subject of public inquiries over the period 1994–1998. The Secretary of State eventually decided that there should be only one MSA, at a site called New Barn Farm. By letters dated 22 October 1999 he granted planning permission for New Barn Farm and refused it for the others. The court now has before it challenges to the grant of permission for New Barn Farm and to the refusal of permission for three of the other sites. There is a high degree of interlinkage between the cases, which were heard together.
The sites and the parties
Five sites were proposed on the western sector of the M25. Taking the proposals in chronological order, they were:
(1) Woodlands Park, also known as Iver and frequently abbreviated to "WP", between M25 junctions 15–16. No challenge is brought in respect of the refusal of permission for that site.
(2) New Barn Farm, also known as Downside or Cobham and frequently abbreviated to "NBF", between M25 junctions 9–10. The local planning authority, Elmbridge Borough Council ("Elmbridge" or "EBC"), objected to the development and is the first applicant in the challenge to the grant of permission (CO/4726/99). A local action group, the (Cobham) Residents and Landowners Group ("RLG"), was another principal objector and, through one of its members, is the second applicant. The development was promoted by Swayfields Ltd ("Swayfields"), which appears as second respondent in support of the Secretary of State's decision.
(3) Simplemarsh Farm, also abbreviated to "SF", at M25 junction 11. The promoters were Hadmere Ltd ("Hadmere") and a predecessor company of Totalfina Great Britain Ltd ("Totalfina"). Hadmere and Totalfina are the applicants in the challenge to the refusal of permission (CO/4744/99). The local planning authority, Runnymede Borough Council ("Runnymede"), opposed the development and appears as second respondent in support of the Secretary of State's decision. Swayfields also opposed the development and appears as third respondent.
(4) Elk Meadows, also abbreviated to "EM", between M25 junctions 15–16. No challenge is brought in respect of the refusal of permission for that site.
(5) Warren Farm, also abbreviated to "WF", between M25 junctions 16–17. The site was promoted by a predecessor company of Totalfina, which is the applicant in the challenge to the refusal of permission (CO/4743/99). The local planning authority, Buckinghamshire County Council ("Buckinghamshire"), opposed the development and appears as second respondent in support of the Secretary of State's decision. Again Swayfields also opposed the development and appears as third respondent.
Of those five sites, three (Woodlands Park, Elk Meadows and Warren Farm) are north of the M25/M4 junction and two (New Barn Farm and Simplemarsh Farm) are south of the junction.
There were, in addition, three proposals for MSAs sited on the M4 but purporting to meet the needs of drivers on the M25. They were:
(1) Great Hazes, also abbreviated to "GH". The promoter was Avalon Enterprises Ltd ("Avalon"), which is the applicant in the challenge to the refusal of permission (CO/4752/99). The local planning authority, Bracknell Forest District Council, was served but has not appeared.
(2) Great Wood, also abbreviated to "GW". No challenge is brought in respect of that site.
(3) A site known as Junction 8–9 (or J8/9) Maidenhead. Again no challenge is brought in respect of that site.
Thus the present challenges are brought by disappointed objectors to New Barn Farm and by the disappointed promoters of the rival sites at Simplemarsh Farm, Warren Farm and Great Hazes; and they are resisted by the Secretary of State, by the successful promoter of New Barn Farm and by local authorities which objected successfully to two of the rival sites.
I have had the benefit of extensive written and oral submissions from counsel for the following parties: Mr Anthony Porten QC for Elmbridge and RLG, Mr Anthony Smith QC for Hadmere and Totalfina, Mr David Elvin QC for Avalon, Mr Philip Sales for the Secretary of State, Mr Andrew Gilbart QC for Swayfields, Mr Michael Druce for Runnymede, and Mr Rupert Warren for Buckinghamshire. I heard counsel's opening submissions in that order, taking all the applicants before the respondents.
Policy background
When the M25 was completed in 1986 there was only one MSA, at South Mimms, along its entire length of approximately 120 miles. Government policy at that time was for the provision of MSAs by the public sector and for one MSA in each quadrant of roughly 30 miles. MSAs were subsequently opened at Thurrock and Clacket Lane, but there remained a gap of approximately 65 miles in the western quadrant between South Mimms and Clacket Lane.
In 1992 Government policy changed so as to make the provision of MSAs a matter for the private sector. The Government continued to favour MSAs at roughly 30 mile intervals throughout the motorway network, but was prepared to provide for infill sites at roughly 15 mile intervals. It was this change which led to the proposals referred to above.
In 1998 the Government issued a further policy statement which placed the emphasis on completing the network of MSAs at 30 mile intervals and indicated that infills would be allowed only exceptionally. The statement made specific provision for the M25, stating that it might not be appropriate to apply general MSA policy in unmodified form and that "the Governments intends …to leave open whether there should be one or two MSAs on the roughly sixty mile stretch of the M25(w) between South Mimms and Clacket Lane until all the relevant Inspectors' reports have been received".
Among the principal issues recurring at all the inquiries were (a) the impact of the proposals on the Green Belt and other countryside policies, and (b) their impact on the free flow and safety of traffic on the motorway. As to (a), national policy on the Green Belt was contained in PPG2. In each case it was agreed that the MSA was not an appropriate form of development in the Green Belt and was harmful to the Green Belt; and the central question was whether there were very special circumstances that would outweigh the harm and justify allowing the proposal. As to (b), the Highways Agency objected on policy grounds to any proposal where a fifth motorway lane was proposed or would be required; and the fifth lane issue generated extensive debate of direct relevance to these proceedings.
Factual history
The first Woodlands Park inquiry
The first proposal to be considered was Woodlands Park. It was the subject of a local inquiry between 22 November and 9 December 1994. In September 1995 the Secretary of State published an interim decision letter stating that he was minded to grant it planning permission.
New Barn Farm: from application to interim decision letter
Meanwhile an application for outline planning permission at New Barn Farm had been submitted by Swayfields on 10 May 1995. It was the subject of a local inquiry between 4 September and 1 October 1996. Two of the issues at the inquiry are of particular relevance:
(1) Highways. A statement on highways matters was...
To continue reading
Request your trial