The Inner London Education Authority v The Secretary of State for the Environment and Another Eight Related Appeals

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE SLADE,LORD JUSTICE LLOYD,LORD JUSTICE STOCKER
Judgment Date20 July 1989
Judgment citation (vLex)[1989] EWCA Civ J0720-4
Date20 July 1989
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Docket Number89/0738

[1989] EWCA Civ J0720-4

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

(MR. JUSTICE SIMON BROWN)

Royal Courts of Justice

Before:

Lord Justice Slade

Lord Justice Lloyd

and

Lord Justice Stocker

89/0738

In the matter of the town and Country Planning Act 1971 and In the matter of Land and Buildings at County Hall, London, SE1.

Between:
The Inner London Education Authority
Respondent
and
The Secretary of State for the Environment and Another
Appellants

and

Eight Related Appeals

MR. DANIEL ROBINS Q.C. and MR. JOHN HOWELL (instructed by Messrs. Linklaters & Paines, Solicitors, London EC2V 7JA) appeared on behalf of the London Residuary Body.

MR. MICHAEL FITZGERALD Q.C. and MR. JOHN HOBSON (instructed by Dr. G.L. Grace, Solicitor for the ILEA, London SEl 7PB) appeared on behalf of the London Borough of Lambeth and the Inner London Education Authority.

MR. DUNCAN OUSELEY and MISS ALISON FOSTER (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment.

LORD JUSTICE SLADE
1

There are before this court five appeals by the London Residuary Body ("the LRB") and four appeals by the Secretary of State for the Environment ("the Secretary of State") from a judgment of Simon Brown J. delivered on 28th March 1988, now reported at (1988) 2 P.L.R. 79. They relate to two sets of decisions of the Secretary of State given in a planning matter by letter dated 20th October 1987. The respondents to the first of LRB's appeals are the Secretary of State, the Council of the London Borough of Lambeth ("LBL") and the Inner London Education Authority ("ILEA"). The respondents to the other four appeals of the LRB are respectively LBL, ILEA, the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority ("LFCDA") and the London Waste Regulation Authority ("LWRA"). The respondents to the four appeals of the Secretary of State are respectively LBL, ILEA, LFCDA and LWRA. In all but the first mentioned appeal, respondents' notices have been served. In the event, however, LFCDA and LWRA have withdrawn their respondents' notices and are not represented before this court.

2

The appeal concerns County Hall, Lambeth. I gratefully adopt the judge's description of this property and the circumstances in which the relevant planning applications were made:

"[County Hall] has long been the centre of London government. It was the headquarters first of the London County Council, then of the Greater London Council. When that body was abolished by the Local Government Act 1985 it became vested in the London Residuary Body (LRB). It consists of four blocks: the Main Block, the North Block, the South Block and the Island Block, the first three being linked to the fourth (which, as its name implies, is surrounded by roads) by a high-level bridge and pedestrian subways. The main building is listed Grade II*. It is 10 storeys high, including the basement and subbasement. The principal floor contains many splendid rooms, notably the Council Chamber, the ambulatory, the lobbies, the conference hall and many fine committee rooms. These and other reception and meeting facilities account for some five per cent of the floor space within this main building. Office accommodation accounts for nearly 50 per cent.

"The remaining floorspace is for storage, building maintenance, various support facilities and other ancillary accommodation. The North Block consists essentially of 11 storeys of mundane office-type accommodation. The South Block consists of nine storeys of similar accommodation. The Island Block provides modern and mostly open-plan office accommodation. Taking the complex of four blocks as a whole, office accommodation occupies substantially more than 50 per cent of the available space.

"Past and present use of the complex has involved very extensive public access to the buildings, with tens of thousand of visitors each year. The public come for various reasons, some exercising statutory rights of attendance at meetings and the like, others coming to use County Hall's many different public facilities. The complex is presently occupied, as to some 57 per cent by the LRB, some 26 per cent by the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) and some three per cent by other bodies, including public authorities such as the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority (LFCDA) and the London Waste Regulation Authority (LWRA). The remaining 14 per cent odd is vacant.

"The LRB is obliged by law to dispose of such of its property holdings as it does not require for carrying out its functions and to do so at the best price reasonably obtainable. To that end, it has been seeking vacant possession of the complex; the last notice to quit expires imminently on March 31 1988. Further to that end, it wishes to market County Hall as a site available for various uses. That wish prompted a number of planning applications. So far as now relevant, those included first, an application pursuant to section 53(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971('the 1971 Act') for a determination that future use of the complex as offices would not constitute or involve development of the land and, second (assuming, contrary to the LRB's intention, that such future use would constitute or involve development), an application for planning permission to make that change of use to office use.

…………"The LBL, the local planning authority, having failed to decide those applications within due time, the LRB appealed to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State appointed David Keene QC as the inspector. An inquiry was held, beginning in April 1987 and lasting seven weeks. It was followed in August 1987 by a careful and detailed 227—page report, which concluded with the inspector recommending both dismissal of the appeal under section 53 and refusal of planning permission for change of use of the main building (and of the complex as a whole because and in so far as it includes the main building) to use as offices."

3

By his decision letter dated 20th October 1987, the Secretary of State accepted the first of those recommendations, and accordingly determined the s.53 appeal against the LRB, which has impugned this first set of his decisions. He determined that proposals to use the whole or any of the buildings in the County Hall complex for office purposes unrelated to any local government statutory function would constitute or involve development of the land for which an application for planning permission would be required under Part III of the 1971 Act, having regard to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Orders 1977 to 1985.

4

The second set of decisions embodied in the Secretary of State's letter have been impugned by LBL, ILEA, LFCDA and LWRA. These were decisions by which he rejected the inspector's recommendation regarding planning permission and himself granted planning permission for use as offices for any purpose of (a) the entirety of County Hall, including the Main Block and (b) the Main Block alone.

5

The Secretary of State's decision was followed by (a) a notice of motion on behalf of LRB pursuant to s.247 (1) of the 1971 Act challenging his determination that planning permission was needed; (b) notices of motion pursuant to s.245 (1) of the 1971 Act on behalf of each of LBL, ILEA, LFCDA and LWRA challenging the grant of such planning permission.

6

The learned judge dismissed LRB's motion, but allowed the respective motions of LBL, ILEA, LFCDA and LWRA and quashed the decision of the Secretary of State notified by his letter of 20th October 1987 insofar as it granted planning permission for the use as offices for any purpose of first the entirety of County Hall, including the Main Block, and second the Main Block alone. He did so on the grounds that the Secretary of State had failed to give adequate reasons for his decision pursuant to the duty imposed on him by Rule 13(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1974 ("the 1974 Rules") and that the interested authorities had been substantially prejudiced by this failure.

7

In the first of its five appeals, LRB (with the leave of the judge) challenges the part of the judge's judgment by which he dismissed its motion and held that planning permission was needed. In its other four appeals, LRB challenges that part of the judge's judgment by which he allowed the respective motions of LBL, ILEA, LFCDA and LWRA and quashed the Secretary of State's decision insofar as it granted the relevant planning permission. In his four appeals the Secretary of State challenges the same part of the judge's judgment.

8

By their respondents' notices, LBL and ILEA submit that the judge's judgment quashing the Secretary of State's decision insofar as it granted the relevant planning permission should be affirmed on the following additional and/or alternative grounds, namely

  • (1) an alleged breach of Rule 12 of the 1974 Rules, a ground dependent upon the Secretary of State having differed from the inspector on a finding of fact;

  • (2) an alleged failure by the Secretary of State to apply the relevant test, despite having correctly identified it;

  • (3) a " Wednesbury" challenge based on the asserted irrationality of the Secretary of State's decision.

9

No issues arise in respect of the North Block, the South Block and the Island Block. In accordance with the Inspector's recommendation, the Secretary of State granted planning permission in respect of these blocks and, save to the extent that the LRB contend that no such permission was required, his decision in this respect is not challenged. The dispute centres on the Main Block.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT