Haddow v Secretary of State for the Environment

Application for planning permission for site – Plaintiff having right to buy site – Secretary of State for the Environment ordering environmental statement – Inspector recommending site be deleted from local plan – Plaintiff claiming damages for negligent misstatement – Whether Secretary of State and council owed duty of care to plaintiff The plaintiff acquired the right to buy a site of 64 acres in Parkeston, Essex, which she intended to develop for use as a petrol filling station, showroom, offices, industrial development, trailer park and an hotel. In November 1988 an application for outline planning permission was submitted to Tendring District Council (TDC). TDC resolved to grant permission subject to agreements and conditions and referred the application to the Secretary of State as a departure from the local plan, the Harwich Town Map. Objectors to the application wrote to the Secretary of State asking that he direct an environmental statement (ES) be submitted. In December 1991 the Secretary of State formally directed that an ES was required. Subsequently, the planning application was amended by the removal of the hotel from the proposed development. The Secretary of State withdrew the direction for an ES. In 1992 the objectors applied for judicial review of both the withdrawal of the direction and of the TDC’s resolution to grant planning permission. The High Court quashed both decisions. The Secretary of State, on reconsideration of the matter, made a direction for an ES. Meanwhile the Department of the Environment concluded that a local plan inquiry would be advantageous. At the local plan inquiry the inspector recommended that the site be deleted from the local plan. The TDC accepted the recommendation with the effect that planning permission could not obtain for the site. The plaintiff claimed damages against the Secretary of State in respect of an alleged negligent misstatement, namely that she had been advised to amend the application so that the direction for an ES could be withdrawn. She claimed on the basis that if she had not been advised to amend the application, she would have proceeded with the preparation of the ES, obtained planning permission and developed the site. The plaintiff also claimed damages from the TDC for negligent misstatement on the basis that if she had been informed of the conclusion that there should be a local plan inquiry, she would not have proceeded with, and incurred the cost of, the preparation of the ES. Held The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. There was no relationship between the plaintiff and the Secretary of State whereby the Secretary of State assumed or undertook a responsibility towards the plaintiff. It had been entirely reasonable for him and those who had been consulted internally at the Department of the Environment to suppose that for such a major development the plaintiff would not simply act on the basis of what was said during a number of telephone conversations, but would also have the benefit of proper advice. In any event, nothing said by the Secretary of State or the TDC was careless or could be characterised as negligent. Adam Parr (instructed by Joseph Hyde & Co) appeared for the plaintiff; Melanie Hall (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent.