Planning

Secretary of state's powers to call in or reclaim planning applications - not incompatible with convention right to have civil rights and obligations decided by an independent and impartial tribunalR (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions; R (Holding and Barnes Plc) v Same; Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions v Legal & General Assurance Society Ltd: HL (Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Nolan, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde and Lord Hutton): 9 May 2001Objectors sought a declaration, pursuant to section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, that the powers of the secretary of state, among other things, to 'call in' or 'reclaim' planning applications pursuant to, respectively, section 77 of and paragraph 3 of schedule 6 to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and decide the matters himself, were incompatible with the right guaranteed by article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, scheduled to the 1998 Act, to have civil rights and obligations determined by an independent and impartial tribunal.

The Queen's Bench Divisional Court made the declaration.

The secretary of state appealed.Jonathan Sumption QC, David Elvin, Philip Sales and James Maurici (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the secretary of state.

Keith Lindblom QC, Craig Howell Williams and Hereward Phillpot (instructed by Marrons, Leicester) for Alconbury.

Gregory Jones and Paul Hardy (instructed by Solicitor to the Council, Cambridge) for Cambridgeshire County Council.

Martin Kingston QC and Peter Goatley (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) for Huntingdonshire District Council.

Paul Stanley and Tim Eicke (instructed by David Barney & Co, Stevenage) for Huntsnap and NVA.

Stephen Hockman QC, Kevin Leigh and Gordon Nardell (instructed by Jennings Son & Ash) for Holding and Barnes.

John Howell QC and Rabinder Singh (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) as amici curiae.

Roderick F Macdonald QC and Andrew G Webster (both of the Scottish Bar) (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Lord Advocate (intervening).Held, allowing the appeal, that the secretary of state was not himself an independent and impartial tribunal but his decisions were subject to judicial review by the High Court; that provided the reviewing body had full jurisdiction to deal with the case as the nature of the decision required there was no incompatibility with article 6(1); that, applying the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, when the decision under review was one of administrative policy the reviewing body was not required to have full power to redetermine the merits of the decision; that, in any event, it would be undemocratic and undesirable for a court to have power to review the merits of a policy decision taken by a minister answerable to the electorate; and that, accordingly, the powers of the High Court in judicial review proceedings to review the legality of the decision and the procedures followed in making it were sufficient to ensure compatibility with article 6(1).

(WLR)