Feeney v Oxford City Council and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Pill |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] EWCA Civ 852 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 29 May 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No: C1/2011/2931 |
[2012] EWCA Civ 852
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(MR STEPHEN MORRIS QC (SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE))
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Pill
Case No: C1/2011/2931
Ms Sarah Sackman (instructed by Richard Buxton Environmental and Public Law) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented.
This is an application for permission to appeal against the decision of Mr Stephen Morris QC sitting as a deputy High Court Judge on 24 October 2011. He gave summary judgment against the applicant, Sean Feeney, who seeks to quash a decision of the Oxford City Council.
The point to be considered has succinctly been put to me by Ms Sackman: can a competent authority, uncertain the impact a development will have on a protected site, defer further studies until a later stage of the planning process? The point, Ms Sackman submits, is an important one; it will affect all planning decisions in relation to habitat protection. Ms Sackman refers me to Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive and to a map showing the Oxford Meadows Special Area of Conservation ("SAC").
Ms Sackman tells me it is common ground, and I accept that one cannot be certain at this stage, that the development proposed will not have an adverse effect upon the SAC. She has referred me to the Northern Gateway Development. The SAC is to the south-west of it. The nearest point is 500 metres away, though proposed roads and road traffic impacts will be very much closer. She has referred to Policy CF 6 of the plan. That sets out that the Northern Gateway is allocated as a strategic location to provide a modern employment lead site, with supporting infrastructure and complementing amenities. A series of types of development is set out and includes a maximum of 55,000 square metres for certain purposes. Complementary uses, it is stated, could include any of the following: emergency services centre, residential dwellings, small retail units and a hotel.
As to implementation of the policy, having referred to such assessment as has been done, it is stated at 3.4.43:
"If the results of these further assessments show that part of the strategic location cannot be delivered without adverse impacts on Oxford Meadows SAC, which cannot be fully mitigated, then the SPD will only make provision for the level and location of development that would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC, even if this level is below that in the strategic allocation."
The point is a short one: it is that the strategic document should not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Cairngorm Campaign And Others V. The Cairngorms National Park Authority+davall Developments Limited+tulloch Homes Limited+an Camas Mor Developments Llp
...which prevented the authority from looking at alternative solutions.) [30] Nothing in the decision in Feeney v Oxford City Council [2012] EWCA Civ 852 contradicted the appellants' position. In Feeney, there had been a detailed assessment of all the material available. Certain issues were id......
-
The Cairngorm Campaign And Others V. The Cairngorms National Park Authority+davall Developments Limited+tulloch Homes Limited+an Camas Mor Developments Llp
...which prevented the authority from looking at alternative solutions.) [30] Nothing in the decision in Feeney v Oxford City Council [2012] EWCA Civ 852 contradicted the appellants' position. In Feeney, there had been a detailed assessment of all the material available. Certain issues were id......
-
Cairngorms Campaign and Others v Cairngorms National Park Authority [Court of Session Inner House Extra Division]
...I-9017; [2006] Env LR 29 Feeney v Oxford City CouncilUNK [2011] EWHC 2699; [2011] All ER (D) 196 (Oct) Feeney v Oxford City CouncilUNK [2012] EWCA Civ 852 Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and anr v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en VisserijECASUNKUNK (C-127/02)......
- ERIC IAN McDERMID Pursuer and Appellant against D & E MACKAY (CONTRACTORS) Ltd Defenders and Respondents