R (Littlewood) v Bassetlaw District Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | SIR MICHAEL HARRISON |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWHC 1812 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/1465/2008 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 20 June 2008 |
[2008] EWHC 1812 (Admin)
Sir Michael Harrison
CO/1465/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr W Upton (instructed by Richard Buxton Environmental and Public Law) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr D Forsdick (instructed by Legal Department) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Introduction
This is an application for judicial review to quash a planning permission granted by the defendant, Bassetlaw District Council, (“the Council”), on 18th December 2007 for what was described as “Steetley Regeneration Phase 1 including a manufacturing facility” on the site of the former Baker Refractory Works at Steetley, near Worksop in Nottinghamshire. The manufacturing facility was a pre-cast concrete manufacturing facility proposed by the applicant for planning permission, Laing O'Rourke, who are the Second Interested Party in these proceedings and whom I will refer to as “Laing” The site is on the border between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and the proposal included an access road which fell within the district of Bolsover in Derbyshire. That aspect of the proposal fell to be determined by Bolsover District Council who are the First Interested Party but who took no part in these proceedings. The claimant is Claire Littlewood who lives at Steetley Farm, Steetley, within about 450 metres of the proposed development. She and other local residents are objectors to the proposed development and she spoke on behalf of the objectors at the relevant meetings of the Planning Committee of Bassetlaw District Council when the planning application was considered.
The application for judicial view was brought on nine grounds. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by Collins J on 4th April 2008 on six of those nine grounds. In granting permission, Collins J stated that he was only granting permission on those grounds because the threshold of arguability is a low one, but he was far from persuaded that, at the end of a full hearing, the claimant would necessarily succeed.
Background
The application site forms part of a wider area referred to as the Steetley site. The application site, which includes the former Baker Refractory Works, has an area of about 26 hectares, whilst the Steetley site as a whole, which includes a former quarry and a former colliery, has a total area of about 85 hectares. The application site is bounded on its eastern side by a railway which was a relevant consideration in Laing's site selection process.
The proposed development consists, broadly speaking, of a main building where the manufacturing would take place, together with cement silos and a concrete batching plant adjoining its south eastern corner. A car parking area and a lorry unloading area are proposed to the south of the building, and a lorry loading area and a storage area are proposed to the north of the building. The access road would run from the south along the western boundary of the site, whilst land is safeguarded on the eastern side of the site for possible future railway sidings. The proposed building, together with the access road and a part of the area to be used to the north of the building would cover about a quarter of the area of the buildings comprised in the former Baker Refractory Works which are now being demolished in order to create a development platform of about 198,000 square metres. The proposed development would take place on part of that platform, the building itself being about 26,000 square metres. The development as a whole would involve an inevitable impact on a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation designated in the local plan and it would involve the loss of some areas of ancient woodland. Those latter aspects form part of one of the grounds of challenge.
First ground of challenge—the Masterplan
The main ground of challenge in this case relates to the failure of the District Council to require the production of a Masterplan for the area as a whole before deciding the planning application. The challenge is put in two ways. Under ground 1, it is said that the failure to require the Masterplan was a failure to take into account a relevant planning consideration and that it was a perverse decision not to require it. Under ground 2, it is said that it was a failure to take into account the likely significant environmental effects of the development, in particular, the cumulative impact of the proposal together with any likely future proposal on the rest of the Steetley site, contrary to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (as amended) (“the EIA Regulations”).
The factual background to this main ground of challenge is as follows. On 21st February 2007, the District Council gave a screening opinion that the proposal required the submission of an Environmental Statement to accompany the application. The reason given for that opinion was that the proposed development was Schedule 2 development which was likely to result in significant effects on the environment sufficient to warrant the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment (an “EIA”) by virtue of a number of factors, the first being “the possible cumulative effects in that the proposed application should not be considered in isolation from the whole of the Steetley site.”
Some of the statutory consultees and interested parties had requested the submission of a Masterplan. Laing did not accept that a Masterplan was necessary at this stage, maintaining that the Phase 1 development had been designed as a stand alone development which was not reliant on any future development on neighbouring land.
The Planning Statement accompanying the application, when dealing with the phased development approach in section 8.3, stated as follows:
“8.3.1.The applicants recognise that several parties would like to see a master plan developed incorporating the comprehensive redevelopment of the entire Steetley site including the Baker Refractory site, Armstrong Quarry and the former Colliery area. The applicant agrees that such a master plan needs to be developed and work is already in hand to prepare this. However, the site has only recently been acquired and therefore time is needed to properly assess all of the options, including the previous proposals drafted by EMDA and Basilton Properties. This will clearly necessitate discussions with relevant parties over the coming months. It is proposed that a planning application covering the entire site will be made later this year.
8.3.2 In the meantime, Laing O'Rourke have an extremely urgent business need for a new pre-cast concrete manufacturing facility to replace an existing facility elsewhere in the UK. Such a facility must be developed quickly due to the expiry of the lease on the existing site. As a result a new facility is required to be up and running during 2008. It is clear therefore that Laing O'Rourke cannot wait for a full site master plan to be approved before applying for the pre-cast facility. As a result that current application proposal forms Phase 1 of the wider site master plan which will be developed over the coming months.
8.3.3 The current application should be considered on its own merits and is designed to be capable of implementation without the requirement for other parts of the site to be involved. The applicants are happy to accept a condition or legal obligation to formerly [sic] submit a wider site master plan within an appropriate period.”
Paragraph 17.12 of the Environmental Statement stated:
“The Pre-Cast Concrete Manufacturing facility forms the first phase of a future wider regeneration of the Steetley site. At present, a masterplan for the future development of the Site has not been prepared. Any future phases of Development on the Steetley site will be the subject of the Environmental Impact Assessment, and potential Type 2 cumulative impacts of the Phase 1 Scheme and future phases of Development will be addressed at this point.”
When this matter came before the Planning Committee of the District Council on 29th October 2007, members had the benefit of an officer's report which dealt with the relevant planning considerations. The paragraph of the report which dealt with this particular aspect stated:
“The required time scale means that the proposal cannot wait for the completion of the comprehensive masterplan for the wider Steetley site, as requested by some of the consultees and interested parties. Whilst work is underway in preparing such a masterplan, this is a particularly complex site and there is a considerable amount of work to be done. Whilst the application proposal is for phase 1 of the masterplan, it has been submitted in advance of the masterplan proposal, which is intended to follow later. The requirement for a masterplan would form part of the Section 106 Legal Agreement.”
The officer's report was accompanied by a briefing note on the proposed contents of the section 106 agreement which included a proposal that a Masterplan should be provided within 12 months of the commencement of the development. A section 106 agreement, which was completed on the same day as the issue of the planning permission, contained such a requirement.
Whilst this ground of challenge relating to the failure to require the production of a master plan before deciding the planning application was divided into two grounds—namely,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pol O Grianna and Others v Framore Ltd
...BUND NATURSCHUTZ IN BAYERN EV v FREISTAAT BAYERN 1994 ECR I-3717 (CASE C-396/92) R (ON THE APPLICATION OF LITTLEWOOD) v BASSETLAW DC 2008 EWHC 1812 (ADMIN) 2009 ENV LR 21 2009 JPL 478 ARKLOW HOLIDAYS LTD v BORD PLEANALA & ORS 2007 1 ILRM 125 2006/3/413 2006 IEHC 15 2014/19JR & 2014/10COM - ......
-
Fitzpatrick v an Bord Pleanála
...I-5403; [1997] Env. L.R. 265; [1997] All E.R. (EC) 131; [1997] 3 C.M.L.R. 1. R. (on the application of Littlewood) v. Bassetlaw D.C. [2008] EWHC 1812 (Admin), [2009] Env. L.R. 21; [2009] J.P.L. 478. O Grianna v. An Bord Pleanála [2014] IEHC 632, (Unreported, High Court, Peart J., 12 Decembe......
-
The Queen (on the application of Save Britain's Heritage) v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council (Interested Party)
...of State did make a screening direction and had to consider whether the demolition was part of a larger development. 132 R (Littlewood) v Bassetlaw District Counsel [2008] EWHC 1812 (Admin), [200] Env LR 21 and Bowen-West v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] EW......
-
R (1) Birchall Gardens Llp and (2) Tarmac Trading Ltd v Hertfordshire County Council (1) Bp Mitchell Ltd and Others (Interested Parties)
...judgment for the planning authority. The circumstances in the Commercial Estates case, and also in R (Littlewood) v Bassetlaw D.C. [2008] EWHC 1812 (Admin) to which I was also referred, are fact sensitive. The same is true of the present case. On the arguments I have heard it would not be ......
-
Shopping in the Public Realm: A Law of Place
...ODPM, PPS 6: Planning for Town Centres (2005) 30; DCLG, PPS 3:Housing (2006).42 R (on the application of Littlewood) v. Bassetlaw DC [2009] Env.L.R. 21.43 G. Wright, `Masterplanning ± visions and parameters' (2003) 31 J. of Planning andEnvironment Law 27, at 33.44 B. de Sousa Santos, `Law a......