of the Act. It does not engage section 8(1) of the 1900 Act. Your
proposed claim, if pursued, will not place “issues relating to
the VTG proposal” before the Court. All substantive matters
relating to the planning application will be for the appointed
Inspector to consider and to report to the Minister of State in
accordance with the procedure laid down by The Town and
Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000
(“the Inquiries Procedure Rules”). Those matters include
section 8(1) of the 1900 Act, insofar as it is engaged by the
planning application. The Inspector must consider all material
considerations, including any relevant legislation, in preparing
the inquiry report under rule 17 of the Inquiries Procedure
Rules. All parties to the inquiry will have the opportunity to
make submissions on those matters to the Inspector at the
inquiry.”
125. My attention was also drawn to the following question asked in Parliament of the
Secretary of State in March 2019:
“Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Housing,
Communities and Local Government, on what date (a) the
Government and (b) the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation
were first informed about the potential application of section 8
(1) of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 to
the proposed location of the Holocaust Learning Centre.
(229633)
Answer, 14 March 2019: Mrs Heather Wheeler: The
Environmental Statement (Volume 3) submitted with the
planning documents in December 2018 identifies that proposals
for enlarging Victoria Tower Gardens were adopted under the
London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900.”
126. In HJ Banks & Co Ltd v Secretary of State [1997] 2 PLR 50, Lord Woolf was
prepared to accept that:
“Speaking in general terms, and recognising there are always
going to be exceptional situations, it seems to me that, although
this court should be cautious to avoid encouraging points to be
taken for the first time in this court, it is perfectly proper for
this court, as a matter of discretion, to allow points to be
argued before us, if the material is before this court to enable
those matters properly to be considered. In relation to the point
which Mr Horton wishes to raise on this particular appeal,
which was not raised in the court below, that appears to me to
45