The court was asked whether the processes by which the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions (SSETR) makes decisions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) and orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA), the Highways Act 1980 (HA) and the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (ALA) are compatible with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Held: A declaration of incompatibility was granted with regard to the processes by which the Secretary of State made decisions under the Planning Act and orders under the Transport and Works Act, Highways Act and Acquisition of Land Act. They were incompatible with article 6.1 of the Convention on the basis that the processes failed to provide an independent tribunal. In some cases, the decisions being challenged were those in effect of the Secretary, and the decision was made by somebody appointed by the subject to removal by the secretary of state. The restrictions on the scope of the High Court to review the decisions and the freedom of the Secretary of State to make his own decision after a public hearing, meant that applicants were deprived of the an independent tribunal.
Tuckey LJ, Harrison J
Times 24-Jan-2001,  EWHC Admin 432,  EWHC 563 (QB)
Appeal from – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Transport, Land, Planning
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140249