“3(1) If the relevant planning authority is a qualifying authority, development to which this paragraph applies must be carried out in accordance with plans and specifications for the time being approved by that authority. … (4) The relevant planning authority may, on approving a plan or specification for the purposes of this paragraph, specify any respect in which it requires there to be submitted for approval additional details of the operation or work which gives rise to the need for approval under sub-paragraph (1). (5) Where the relevant planning authority exercises the power conferred under sub-paragraph (4), the plans and specifications in accordance with which the development is required under subparagraph (1) to be carried out must, as regards the specified respect, include a plan or specification showing the additional details. (6) The relevant planning authority may only refuse to approve plans or specifications for the purposes of this paragraph on a ground specified in relation to the work in question in the following table.”
“That the design or external appearance of the works ought to, and could reasonably be, modified – to preserve the local environment or local amenity, to prevent or reduce prejudicial effects on road safety or on the free flow of traffic in the local area, or to preserve a site of archaeological or historic interest or nature conservation value. If the development does not form part of a scheduled work, that the development ought to, and could reasonably, be carried out elsewhere within the development’s permitted limits.”
“These approvals have been carefully defined to provide an appropriate level of local planning control over the works while not unduly delaying or adding cost to the project. Planning authorities should not through the exercise of the Schedule seek to: - revisit matters settled through the parliamentary process; - seek to extend or alter the scope of the project; or - modify or replicate controls already in place, either specific to HS2 Phase One such as the Environmental Minimum Requirements, or existing legislation such as the Control of Pollution Act or the regulatory requirements that apply to railways.”
“7.1 For all approvals under Schedule 17, the Schedule specifies the grounds that are relevant. When determining a request for approval a planning authority must only consider the grounds relevant to that approval. Therefore requests may only be refused, conditions be imposed, and modifications or additional information requested, where they relate to the grounds specified for determining the request for approval. ….. 7.6 When considering requests for approval for which the grounds include the preservation of a site of archaeological or historic interest this ground should be taken to include the preservation of the setting of listed buildings. This ground should be applied in conjunction with other material considerations.”
“7.7.1 Where an authority refuses approval of a request for approval, in addition to specifying the grounds under the Planning Conditions Schedule for its decision, it shall state clearly and precisely the full reasons for its decision. 7.7.2 Where the authority’s decision in relation to the determination of plans and specifications has been reached on the ground that…the development ought to be and could reasonably be carried out elsewhere within the relevant limits, the authority shall include an explanation of why and how it considers the modifications should be made.”
“This written statement is compiled in accordance with the High Speed Two (HS2) Planning Memorandum and Forum Notes as required by the planning regime established under Schedule 17 of theHigh Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017 (the Act). This statement provides the London Borough of Hillingdon with information to assist with the determination of the plans and specifications submission in relation to the above description of works. This statement is for information only and not for approval.”
“The site is located within the Colne Valley Archaeological Protection Zone (APZ) an area of acknowledged archaeological potential. The site has potential for Palaeolithic remains within Thames Terrace gravels associated with CVA044 and lies within the extent of CVA021, an area of Mesolithic activity at Dews Farm evidenced by finds of tranchet axes, cores and flakes, animal bones and teeth. Previous archaeological investigations in the surrounding area have also identified organic sediments of possible Mesolithic date. A cropmark indicative of a possible ring ditch is recorded to the northeast of the site. However, it is considered that the cropmark identified is quite small (at approximately 5m diameter) for a ring ditch and somewhat elongated. It is therefore possible that this is instead a small quarry. The find spot of an early Saxon spearhead has been recorded within the proximity of Dews Farm, which could indicate the previous existence of a Saxon burial ground within proximity of the site. Remote sensing surveys undertaken to inform the HS2 Phase 1 Environmental Statement have identified a curvilinear/ditched enclosure (GO2) and field boundary/bank (G13) features immediately east of the site. Geophysical surveys will be carried out at this site to inform the presence/absence, extent and significance of the potential archaeological resource and to identify the requirement for further archaeological investigation. If archaeological remains are identified, trial trench evaluation may be undertaken prior to construction of the habitat creation site. All archaeological works will be carried out by specialist contractors, focusing on the location of the pond and associated earthworks.”
“The general constraints and drivers, which have informed the design of the mitigation site, include: …. •Taking into account the proposed mitigation in the HS2 Environmental Statement and the Environmental Minimum Requirements: ….”
“The geophysical survey of the Colne Valley Wetland site was planned for August 2017 as part of a wider programme of geophysics across the area … Due to various land ownership and access issues, and despite several attempts to undertake the survey, we have to date not been able to complete the works. It is this delay to our survey programme which has resulted in apparent lack of archaeological evidence to support the Schedule 17 submission. Do rest assured that the geophysical survey, trial trench evaluation, critical review of the results and any recommendation to move the pond or implement archaeological mitigation works will be completed before construction of the habitat site begins in 2019…”
“78. With regard to archaeology, I find that the information available to the Council was not adequate. The design of the works ought to, and could reasonably, be modified to preserve a site of archaeological interest, if found necessary once adequate information becomes available. 79. Moreover, if found necessary once adequate information becomes available, the development ought to, and could reasonably, be carried out elsewhere within the development’s permitted limits. I find it unreasonable to expect the Council to approve an application, or to show how the works ought to be, and could reasonably, be modified or carried out elsewhere, on the basis of inadequate information. 80. Turning to ecology, I find that, although there were shortcomings in the assembly of the ES, adequate information was available to allow the Council to make a pragmatic but responsible judgment on the effect of the proposals on the ecological value of the Site.”
“39. In this case, trial pit investigation of the site, including that part which is of most concern to the Council (the mitigation pond) will be undertaken in accordance with the EMRs (Heritage Memorandum and GWSI: HERDS) as explained in the Written Statement. In the event that the results of this investigation show the plans and other documents for the proposed works require modification, HS2 Ltd will be required to do so and, if necessary, make a further submission under Schedule 17. The Secretaries of State note, that in such circumstances, the Council’s concerns at IR24 and IR32 (that the control provided by the Act would be frustrated) would be unfounded. It is not the purpose of the Schedule 17 procedure to replicate or police the process of investigation set out in the EMRs, but rather to complement it. 40. The Secretaries of State conclude that the correct approach here, therefore, was for the Council to determine the application on the basis of the controls already in place under the EMRs. The Secretaries of State consider that the Council, by refusing the application, and the Inspector in accepting the Council’s arguments on this point … have incorrectly sought to replicate those controls through the Schedule 17 process.”
“The assessment of how much and what information should go into a report to enable the planning committee to perform its function is itself a matter for the officers, exercising their own expert judgment (R v Mendip District Council ex parte Fabre(2000) 80 P & CR 500 at page 509). However, of course, if the material included is insufficient to enable the committee to perform its function, or if it is misleading, the decision taken by the committee on the basis of a report may be challengeable.”
“That the design or external appearance of the works ought to, and could reasonably be, modified – (a)to preserve the local environment or local amenity, (b)to prevent or reduce prejudicial effects on road safety or on the free flow of traffic in the local area, or (c)to preserve a site of archaeological or historic interest or nature conservation value.”
“The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the ‘principal important controversial issues’, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decisionmaker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.”
“54. In short, although it is clear that the Secretary of State disagreed with the inspector’s view that the guarantees and safeguards were inadequate he does not explain why he came to that conclusion. I do not consider that requiring a fuller explanation of his reasoning either amounts to requiring reasons for reasons or that it requires a paragraph by paragraph rebuttal of the Inspector’s views. But it does require the Secretary of State to explain why he disagreed with the inspector, beyond merely stating his conclusion that he did. The two critical sentences in the decision letter are, in my judgment, little more than “bald assertions”