Maurice v London County Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,MR JUSTICE WILBERFORCE |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 1964 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1964] EWCA Civ J0219-3 |
| Date | 19 February 1964 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1964] EWCA Civ J0219-3
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From the Divisional Court Queen's Bench Divisions
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Pearson and
Mr Justice Wilberforce
MR R. E. MEGARRY, Q. C. and MR JEREMIAH HARMAN (instructed by Messrs Fladgate & Co.) appeared as Counsel for the Appellant.
MR K. P. GOODFELLOW (instructed by the Solicitor to the London County Council) appeared as Counsel for the Respondents.
Miss Maurice owns her own house at No. 5 Albert Studios, Battersea. It is one of a row of eight artists' studios. Tt is screened, she says, from the surrounding buildings by tall trees, lovely gardens and outdoor living rooms. It has Battersea Park across the road. The London County Council have prepared a great development plan for the Ethelburga Street site in Battersea. As part of this plan they propose to build a block of flats of 23 storeys in a tower 225 feet 9 inches high. This tower block is less than 100 yards from Miss Maurice's house. She objects to it because she says it will deprive her house of those amenities. It will also, she says, spoil Battersea Park which, with its magnificent trees, provides a completely screened oasis of green and peace within a few yards of the studios. She also objects to it, she says, as a citizen of London.
Now under the London Building Act a person who wants to put up a building more than 100 feet high has to obtain the consent of the London County Council. The Acts no doubt envisage a private developer erecting such a building rather than the London County Council themselves. It is only in comparatively recent years that the London County Council have come into the housing field on such a scale. So for this development the London County Council have, as builders, to ask themselves, as local authority, for their own consent to this tower being built. And that they have done. They have given themselves their consent to the erection of the building. It is provided, however, in Section 52, sub-section (2)(a) of the London building Act, 1930, that "the owner or lessee of any building or land within 100 yards of the site of any intended building who may deem himself aggrieved by the grant of such consent in respect of the last mentioned building, may within twenty-one days after the publication of notice of the consent appeal to the tribunal of appeal".
Miss Maurice's house is just within the 100 yards. She appealed to the tribunal of appeal against this consent which the London County Council have given themselves. She conducted her case before the tribunal in person. She called two witnesses? the first was Mr H. W. Sendall, who is a Councillor of the Battersea Borough Council. He said in the course of his evidence: "My own personal view is that the 23 storey block is out of character with the area concerned, and in particular so far as it affects the Albert Studios". She also called Dr. Thomas Sharp, who is a well known expert in town planning and lives cloe to Battersea Park, Miss Maurice asked him whether in his view this building made a better contribution to the character of the area than possible alternatives. Dr. Sharp saids "I should have thought that there were a great many alternatives and that this in fact does almost the maximum damage to the area". The London County Council by their Counsel did not cross-examine the witnesses? they said that this evidence was irrelevant. The only matters, they said, of which Miss Maurice could complain was the effect of the additional height over 100 feet on the natural light of the house and, as an aspect of that, on the question of overshadowing. She could not complain, they said, of loss of amenities. The tribunal accepted the London County Council's submissions in their entirety. Miss Maurice wished to address them on the loss of amenities. She saids "I hoped that the loss of amenities, which I considered very serious, would be considered by the tribunal as at least as relevant as overshadowing or loss of daylight". But the tribunal gave their ruling against her. The President said: "If it is wrong in law, you have got a remedy". So she did not address them on the loss of amenities.
But after the tribunal had retired to consider the matter, they seem to have had second thoughts. They did in fact consider the loss of amenities, although they had not hearher upon it. They came back and gave this as their decision: "We have corns to the conclusion that it" - that is, No. 5 Albert Studios - "will not be injuriously affected in any way which entitles us to interfere, and we have taken into consideration in reaching that conclusion not merely the question of light but also any loss of amenity or convenience there might be in having a high building put up so near to her". So they dismissed her appeal. She asked for a Case Stated. The Tribunal stated a Case. It was in a form which was not agreed. Miss Maurice's advisers made a motion to amend it. On this motion a transcript was available. And it is from this transcript tuat the facts appear as I have stated them.
The Tribunal found as a fact that the height would not affect the natural light of Miss Maurioe's house or cause any shadow over it. These findings are accepted. They also found that the height would not occasion Miss Maurice any appreciable loss of amenity or convenience. This finding is Ghallenged on the ground that there was some evidence, and also that she was not heard upon it. The Tribunal said that they took no account of the evidence of Mr Sendall and Dr. Sharp and ask whether they were right in law in disregarding it.
The Divisional Court has upheld the decision of the Tribunal on the ground that Miss Maurice could in point of law only complain of the injury to the light and air coming to her house and of nothing else. She could not complain of loss of amenities. So even if the Tribunal disregarded the evidence of her witnesses? it did not matter: because she could only complain of damage to light and air.
Miss Maurice now appeals to this Court. The first point argued before us is whether she can complain of loss of amenity. On this point I am afraid I have come to a decision different from that of the Divisional Court. The material woras in Section 52, sub-section (2)(a) give a right of appeal "to the owner or lessee of any land within 100 yards who maydeem Mmself aggrieved" by the grant of consent. It is quite clear that the pezson must be aggrieved in respect of his interest in a building or land within 100 yards. But there is no limitation whatever as to the kind of grievance. I can see no reason whatever for excluding loss of amenities.
I know that at one time the words "person aggrieved" (which I regard as the same as "person who shall deem himself aggrieved") were given in these Courts a very narrow and restricted interpretation. It was said that the words "person aggrieved" in a statute only meant a person who had suffered a legal grievance. Indeed in Buxton's case, which I mentioned in the course of the argument, in 196l, 1 Queen's Bench, page 278, Mr Justice Salmon declined to go into the question of loss of amenities. But in a more recent case xn the Privy Council, Attorney-General of the Gambia v. N'Jie, in 196l Appeal Cases at page 634, the Privy Council had to consider these words "person aggrieved" once again. On behalf of the Board, I. ventured to say theres "The words 'person aggrieved' are of wido import and should not be subjected to a restrictive interpretation. They do not include, of course, a mere busybody who is interfering in things which do not concern him: but they do incluae a person who has a genuine grievance because an order has been made which prejudicially affects his interests". So Here in this case they do include a person who has a genuine grievance because a consent has been given which prejudicially affects his interests. His interests may be prejudicially affected, not only in regard to light and air, but in regard to amenities also. The one requisite must be that his grievance must be in respect of his interest as an owner or lessee of a building within 100 yards.
But what is the argument on the other side? It is said that if you look through Part V of the Act you will see a number of earlier sections dealing with light and air specifically such as Sections 43 and 44: and from these it should beimplied that this whole group of sections,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Turner v Secretary of State for the Environment
-
Aireborough Neighbourhood Development Forum v Leeds City Council
...grievance because something has been done or may be done which affects him: see Attorney General of the Gambia v. N'Jie and Maurice v. London County Council. The taxi cab owners' association here have certainly a locus standi to apply for relief.” See also the succeeding application for jud......
- Edwards v Giudice
- News Corporation Ltd v National Companies and Securities Commission