R (Malster) v Ipswich Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN |
| Judgment Date | 17 August 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWHC 711 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/2187/2001 |
| Date | 17 August 2001 |
[2001] EWHC 711 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Mr Justice Sullivan
CO/2187/2001
MISS E SHARPSTON QC and MR M EDWARDS (instructed by Richard Buxton, 40 Clarendon Street, Cambridge CB1 1JX) appeared on behalf of the Applicant.
MR J LITTON (instructed by Ipswich Borough Council, The Civic Centre, Civic Drive, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2EE) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
MR D ELVIN QC and MR J MAURICI (instructed by Ashurst Morris Crisp, Broadwalk House, 5 Appold Street, London EC2A 2HA) appeared on behalf of the Interested Party.
Friday, 17th August 2001
Introduction
1. In these proceedings the claimant, Mrs Rose Malster, challenges a grant of planning permission on 4th May 2001 by the Ipswich Borough Council (the Council) to the Ipswich Town Football Club (the Club) for the redevelopment of the north stand at the Club's Portman Road stadium. Permission to apply for judicial review was refused on the papers by Turner J. When the renewed application came before me on 18th July, I directed that the application for permission and the substantive hearing be listed together and be dealt with as a matter of urgency.
Factual background
2. The claimant lives at 42 Alderman Road. Number 42 is part of a terrace of two-storey Victorian houses on the east side of Alderman Road which runs north/south. At its southern end is Sir Alf Ramsey Way, which runs east/west. The north stand which existed until a few weeks ago was on the south side of Sir Alf Ramsey Way. On the northern side there is, running from west to east, a park (on the western side of Alderman Road), a three-storey hostel, which largely faces south at the end of the terrace, but which has a return frontage to Alderman Road, and then a car park. Moving north up Alderman Road, after the hostel at the corner comes number 43, which is owned by the Council and is tenanted, and then number 42, the claimant's property. Number 42 is within 50 metres of the proposed new stand.
3. Until a few weeks ago there were stands on all four sides of the stadium. The south stand, which is currently under redevelopment, will provide a two-tier stand with capacity for over 7,000 spectators. On the eastern side there is the Cobbold Stand with a capacity for over 7,000 spectators, also on two tiers. And on the western side there is the Britannia Stand, which has a capacity for nearly 9,000 in three tiers. These three stands range between 17.5 and 26.5 metres or so in height.
4. The recently demolished north stand was a functional, single-tier structure clad in asbestos sheeting with a capacity of 3,363 seated. Its standing capacity used to be nearly twice that number. Prior to the implementation of the recommendations in the Taylor Report limiting standing numbers, its capacity was even higher than that, up to around 12,000. The new two-tier northern stand will provide seating for 7,035 spectators and will have a maximum height of 25 metres and a substantive height of around 20 metres.
5. The application for planning permission for the redevelopment of the north stand was submitted on 8th March 2001, but prior to that there had been extensive discussions with the Council's planning officers. The application was advertised and was the subject of considerable press interest. It is unnecessary to set out the details of the advertisements, because there is no doubt that the process of public consultation considerably exceeded that required under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order.
6. On 19th March the residents of Alderman Road sent a letter and a petition to the Council alleging, inter alia, that there would be a loss of sunlight for the residents at the southern end of the road. On 21st March there was a meeting between the Council's planning officers and the Club's planning and architectural consultants. That meeting was also attended by Mr Redler, a partner in Delva Patman (daylight consultants to the Club). He had prepared initial shadow drawings dealing with the position as at 21st March (the spring equinox). The planning officer asked for further analysis to be done showing the position at both mid summer and mid winter. The planning officer also visited the site and carried out his own informal assessment of the shadowing effect of the proposed new building.
7. On 23rd March the area planning officer, Mr Miller, wrote to the Club in these terms:
“The Borough Council has considered the application in accordance with regulation 7(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (‘the 1999 Regulations’).
The development proposed falls within the description at paragraph 10b of Schedule 2 to the 1999 Regulations and meets the criteria in column 2 of the table in that Schedule. In the opinion of the Borough Council, having taken account of the criteria in Schedule 3 to the 1999 Regulations the development proposed would not be likely to have a significant effect on the environment by virtue of factors such as the development's nature, size or location.
Accordingly the Council adopts this Screening Opinion in accordance with regulation 5(4) of the 1999 regulations to the effect that the development for which planning permission is sought…is not EIA development and therefore an Environmental Statement is not required.
In accordance with Regulation 20(1) of the 1999 Regulations this screening opinion has been placed on Part 1 of the Planning Register.”
8. At the instigation of a local councillor, a meeting was arranged by the Council for the residents of Alderman Road on 9th April. The Club had arranged an earlier meeting, and held a further meeting on 17th April. By that time Delva Patman had prepared its full daylight assessment, and shadow analysis drawings were made available for inspection at that meeting. Mr Smith, the Council's head of Development Control, attended the meeting and explained the drawings to those who were interested. The next day revised drawings were sent to the Council showing house numbers so that the extent to which individual properties would be affected could be seen with greater clarity.
9. On 19th April the Club sent a planning statement in support of its application to the Council. The application was due to be considered by the Council's Development Control Committee on Wednesday, 25th April. Mr Miller's report on behalf of the Chief Planning Officer was made available to the public on the previous Friday, 20th April. The report described the proposal. It is relevant to note that the report said, inter alia:
“The floodlights are not part of the application and will be the subject of a further submission but it is likely that these would be angled off from the end blocks as opposed to being an integral part of the cross lattice steel work as at the south stand.”
“The structure would be located parallel to the hostel at 3 Sir Alf Ramsey Way and approximately 7 metres away from the building.”
10. Having described the proposal, the report set out the outcome of the consultations and the representations that had been received by the Council. These included the petition from the Alderman Road residents, and also the Club's supporting statement. The issues raised in these representations were then summarised in a number of bullet points. They included “Residents ignored in favour of ‘Big picture’ of [the Club]” and “Will block view/light (daylight and sunlight).”
11. The report then set out those policies of the Ipswich Local Plan which Mr Miller considered to be relevant. Following a number of policies which are essentially concerned with securing a high standard of design, he referred to Policy RL17:
“Proposals for the development of new indoor sport and leisure facilities, the extension of existing facilities and the conversion and change of use of buildings to sport and leisure uses will be acceptable providing;
(b) there is no significant loss of residential amenity enjoyed by residents of nearby properties.”
12. The report then proceeds to comment under a number of headings. First of all, public consultation is dealt with, and it is concluded:
“The consultation undertaken by the planning department goes far beyond what is necessary under the Regulations and is considered satisfactory.”
13. Concern had been expressed about the speed with which the Council was considering the application. The report dealt with that and said this:
“…it is acknowledged that the club have a tight timetable requiring the lower tier to be constructed during the closed season and the upper tier to be completed before the end of next season.”
14. Highways matters were dealt with in some detail, and the report then said:
“The main planning issues in this case are design, materials, impact on the street scene and the impact on nearby housing.”
15. The design was then considered in some detail, and as part of that analysis the report said this:
“There will undoubtedly be a very close relationship to the hostel at 3 Sir Alf Ramsey Way. The turnstiles will be approximately 14 metres away, the upper concourse 11 metres away with the curved top most part of the structure angled 60 degrees from the eaves of the hostel at 12.5 metres away. This is very close, but generally it is within an area of contrasts.”
16. And certain examples are given. The report continues:
“Generally, the 3 story hostel at no. 3 Sir Alf...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R (Malster) v Ipswich Borough Council
-
R (City of Westminster) v Mayor of London
..." Mr. Henderson submits that this is no longer good law, but I note that it was followed recently by Sullivan J in R (on the application of Malster) v. Ipswich Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 711. This brings me to Berkeley v. Secretary of State for the Environment [2001] 2 AC 603 HL and......
-
R (Catt) v Brighton and Hove City Council
...which Burkett's case was concerned” (paragraph 32). He relied on the statement of Sullivan J in R (Malster) v Ipswich Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 711, which pre-dated Burkett and was not cited in it. Sullivan J stated: “It is not appropriate to wait until after planning permission ha......
-
R (Lough and Others) v First Secretary of State
...since any diminution in value is an effect of the loss of amenity: see Malster at paragraph 89 per Sullivan J. [ R(Malster)) v Ipswich Borough Council [2002] PLCR 251]. 30. While it may be correct to say that it is unnecessary to look for a threshold, it makes no difference in practice. If ......