Pickles admits allotment development decision was unlawful

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has accepted that his decision to give consent to building on an allotment site in Watford was unlawful and so should be quashed.

The acknowledgment came after a group of allotment holders had threatened judicial review proceedings over the minister's decision, which would have led to the appropriation of the Farm Terrace allotment site.

Watford Borough Council argued that the land was needed for the viability of a scheme to expand Watford Hospital and build 600 homes. The authority’s Cabinet decided in December 2012 to appropriate the allotments.

The allotment holders argued that Eric Pickles unlawfully failed to follow his own policy criteria in May 2013, in that he granted consent under s. 8 of the Allotments Act 1925 to the appropriation of allotments which were not unnecessary or surplus to requirements, without recognising that this was a requirement of the policy or explaining the justification for departing from the policy in this case.

In their letter before claim, the allotment holders also claimed that there was a legitimate expectation that the Secretary of State’s policy, including the criterion that consent would only be granted if allotments are unnecessary or surplus to requirements, would be applied.

A second ground of challenge was based on the alleged inadequacy of the replacement site provision. The council had offered plot holders places at another site in Oxhey, but this was more than a mile away.

The claimants said the Communities Secretary’s lack of reasoning on the adequacy of the site at Paddock Road as an alternative replacement site rendered his decision unlawful.

They also suggested that Watford BC’s failure to put in place adequate measures to facilitate the relocation of the Farm Terrace allotment holders meant the grant of unconditional consent was unlawful.

The allotment holders said that the Secretary of State had proceeded on the basis that the council was committed to investing £800,000 in the re-provision of allotments, but the claimants suggested that no such commitment appeared to have been made.

In addition, the claimants argued that the minister had not considered the equalities implications of the reappropriation of the allotments and so did not expressly have regard to his duties under s. 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: "This original planning decision was made by planning officials under delegated authority on behalf of the Department, and not by Ministers. In light of representations the Department intends to agree to cancel the decision and re-determine the application."

A spokesman for Watford said the decision by the DCLG to concede was "based solely on the view taken by the Treasury Solicitor that the DCLG's decision letter dated 8 May 2013 contained an arguable error of law in that it gave insufficient reasons for departing with one of the DCLG's policy criteria. DCLG did not concede on any other issue and they have made it clear that they will redetermine the decision.

“There is no criticism of the council’s submission to DCLG or the case we made for the wider benefits of the Health Campus including the opportunity to develop new, modern hospital facilities, deliver new homes and more green accessible space for the West Watford community.”

The spokesman added that the council had delivered “a robust response to various inaccuracies” in the letter before claim, as well as providing further clarification of the issues raised.

He said: “This includes confirming the council's ownership of our Farm Terrace allotment land and our 100% commitment to invest £810,000 to improve allotments across the borough and £750,000 on replacement allotment site provision. This is also on public record.

“We have already started working with our allotment holders on how they think the investment could make a real difference to the sites and we have appointed a specialist to deliver these improvements.”

The allotment holders’ lawyers were Deighton Pierce Glynn, with partner Adam Hundt instructing Jason Coppel QC of 11KBW to act in the case.