Introduction

The case of The London Borough of Hillingdon Council, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for Transport & Anor ([2021] EWCA Civ 1501) presents a critical examination of the obligations and limitations placed upon local planning authorities under Schedule 17 of the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Act 2017 ("the HS2 Act"). The central dispute revolves around the routing of lorries to and from construction sites within the London Borough of Hillingdon, specifically questioning whether the inspector's decision to approve HS2 Ltd.'s proposed routes without imposing additional conditions was lawful. This case builds upon a previous similar claim that reached the Court of Appeal in July 2020, further refining the interpretation and application of Schedule 17 provisions in high-profile infrastructure projects like HS2.

Summary of the Judgment

The London Borough of Hillingdon Council sought to appeal the dismissal of its judicial review claim against the inspector's decision to approve HS2 Ltd.'s lorry route arrangements without additional conditions. The council argued that the inspector misapplied Schedule 17 provisions, particularly regarding the "burden of proof" and reliance on the Environmental Minimum Requirements ("EMR"). However, the England and Wales Court of Appeal upheld the inspector's decision, affirming that the inspector acted within his lawful duties. The court found that the council failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed lorry routes would negatively impact road safety and traffic flow, thereby negating the necessity for additional conditions. Consequently, permission to appeal was refused, reinforcing the inspector's authority and the adequacy of the existing statutory and contractual frameworks governing the HS2 project.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced the previous Hillingdon proceedings ([2020] EWCA Civ 1005) and various other cases to underpin its findings:

• St Modwen Developments Ltd. v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2018] PTSR 746: Emphasized the principles governing judicial review of planning decisions.
• Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2019] PTSR 1452: Highlighted the court's reluctance to interfere with the merits of administrative decisions without clear public law grounds.
• City & Country Bramshill Ltd. v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] EWCA Civ 320: Reinforced the deferential approach courts take towards planning inspectors' decisions.
• Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ 692: Discussed the role of expert tribunals in making evaluative judgments.

The court relied on these precedents to assert that planning inspectors possess the requisite expertise to evaluate complex evidence and that their judgments should not be undermined by courts unless there is a clear breach of public law principles.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the interpretation of Schedule 17 of the HS2 Act, particularly paragraphs 6 and 22, which delineate the conditions under which local planning authorities can approve or refuse lorry routes:

• Duty to Perform Evaluative Assessment: The court affirmed that local planning authorities have a statutory duty to conduct their own assessments of the impact of proposed developments, independent of contractual agreements like the EMR.
• Role of Environmental Minimum Requirements (EMR): While the EMR provides a framework for managing environmental impacts, it does not absolve local authorities from their evaluative duties under Schedule 17. The inspector appropriately considered the EMR alongside other evidence without allowing it to override statutory obligations.
• Burden of Proof: The court dismissed the council's argument that the inspector improperly imposed a legal burden of proof. It clarified that the inspector's requirement for the council to substantiate its claims was consistent with planning norms and necessary for maintaining the integrity of the approval process.
• Justification of Conditions: The court found that the proposed conditions by the council were unnecessary as the existing traffic management measures in the EMR were deemed sufficient to mitigate any potential adverse effects.

Overall, the legal reasoning underscored the balance between statutory obligations, contractual frameworks, and the expertise of planning inspectors in making informed decisions.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future infrastructure projects and the operations of local planning authorities:

• Reaffirmation of Inspectorial Authority: The decision reinforces the autonomy and expertise of planning inspectors in evaluating complex planning applications, limiting the scope for local authorities to challenge their decisions without robust evidence.
• Clarification of Schedule 17 Obligations: By delineating the specific duties of local authorities under Schedule 17, the court provides clear guidance on the extent to which authorities can impose conditions and rely on existing contractual frameworks like the EMR.
• Enhanced Collaboration Expectations: The judgment highlights the necessity for mutual cooperation between developers and local authorities, emphasizing that developers must provide adequate information to facilitate informed decision-making.
• Judicial Deference to Administrative Expertise: Courts will continue to exhibit deference to the specialized judgments of administrative bodies like planning inspectors, intervening only in cases of clear legal error or irrationality.

Consequently, developers undertaking large-scale projects can expect a streamlined approval process, provided they adhere to statutory requirements and maintain transparent communication with planning authorities.

Complex Concepts Simplified

To aid comprehension, the following legal concepts and terminologies from the judgment are elucidated:

• Schedule 17: A section of the HS2 Act that outlines specific conditions and approval processes for local planning authorities when managing the impacts of the HS2 railway project within their jurisdictions.
• Environmental Minimum Requirements (EMR): A set of contractual obligations that HS2 Ltd. must adhere to, aimed at minimizing the environmental and community impacts of the HS2 project.
• Qualified Authority: A local planning authority that has met certain criteria and is empowered under Schedule 17 to approve or refuse lorry routes related to the HS2 project.
• Route Management, Improvement and Safety Plan (ROMIS): A document submitted by HS2 Ltd. detailing the proposed routes for lorry movements, including safety and traffic management measures.
• Vehicle Management System (VMS): A system implemented by HS2 Ltd. to monitor and manage lorry movements in real-time, ensuring adherence to traffic management plans and minimizing congestion.
• Planning Forum Notes (PFN): Guidelines produced by the Planning Forum to standardize the process of approving lorry routes, ensuring consistency and adherence to best practices.
• Judicial Review: A legal process by which the court examines the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body, ensuring it complies with legal standards and procedures.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Hillingdon Council v Secretary of State for Transport serves as a pivotal reference for understanding the responsibilities and limitations of local planning authorities under the HS2 Act's Schedule 17. By upholding the inspector's decision, the court affirmed the critical role of expert judgment in planning assessments and reinforced the sufficiency of existing statutory and contractual mechanisms in managing large-scale infrastructure projects. This judgment not only clarifies the procedural expectations placed upon both developers and local authorities but also ensures that judicial intervention remains circumspect, respecting the specialized functions of planning inspectors unless clear legal violations occur. Stakeholders in future infrastructure endeavors can draw confidence from this ruling, recognizing the robust frameworks in place to balance development needs with community and environmental safeguards.