Save Historic Newmarket Ltd and Others v Forest Heath District Council and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD CARLILE OF BERRIEW QC |
| Judgment Date | 15 September 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 3268 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 15 September 2010 |
| Docket Number | CO/6882/2010 |
[2010] EWHC 3268 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Before: Lord Carlile of Berriew QC
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
CO/6882/2010
Mr Charles Banner (instructed by Ashursts LLP) appeared on behalf of the Claimants
Mr Michael Bedford (instructed by Forest Heath DC, Legal Services Dept) appeared on behalf of the 1st Defendant
Mr Jonathan Karas QC (instructed by LG Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Applicant (Lord Derby)
(As approved)
: This case relates to the future of nationally important land at Newmarket. At this hearing the Earl of Derby applies to be joined as a defendant to the action.
I have had my attention drawn by the Claimants' counsel Mr Banner to certain provisions concerning the service of documents in appeals to the High Court in planning matters. Though those provisions are helpful and to some extent indicative of who may be appropriate parties, in my judgment those provisions in no way restrict the identity or nature of appropriate parties.
I have heard helpful submissions from counsel on behalf of Lord Derby, the claimants, and the first defendant the Forest Heath District Council. For the Council Mr Bedford took a role of what I might call disarming neutrality, which I found especially helpful because it gave me a broad picture of what underlies this action.
In my judgment, in the particular circumstances of this case, it is clear that Lord Derby has an interest in the proceedings, as summarised in the documents he has filed with the Court. His interest is not identical to that of the Council or the Secretary of State. Indeed there may be circumstances in which his interest is quite different from those of the Council or the Secretary of State. In exercise of the aims of the overriding objective, it is therefore just and appropriate for a just outcome of the case that Lord Derby should be joined as a defendant.
That having been determined, I am asked by the Defendants to order expedition of the action. The claimants object to expedition on the grounds that it is not appropriate because these are not the sort of exceptional proceedings in which expedition should be granted. In any event, the Council, the first Defendant, has not yet submitted its full evidence, notwithstanding the deadline for submission of its evidence was 13 July 2010. Mr Banner adds that the Council apparently has not asked for directions giving an extension of time from that date.
Mr Banner argues too that the Planning Inspectorate in certain cases is able to and sometimes is inclined to agree a special timetable (a ‘bespoke timetable’) which effectively delays the hearing of a planning appeal beyond the normal target timetable of the Planning Inspectorate, in order to allow for the proper determination of direct and connected issues. Of course, there is no requirement on the Planning Inspectorate to accept a bespoke timetable. It is incumbent on the Planning Inspectorate to exercise their discretion in a rational way, which allows for the just disposal of any planning matters coming before the Inspectorate, and in a way that avoids duplication by any further planning appeals.
If the Planning Inspectorate reaches any decision which is unlawful in the sense of being irrational, then plainly that decision by the Planning Inspectorate would be judicially reviewable on ordinary judicial review principles.
In my judgment, making an order now for expedition might not achieve the purpose of securing the determination of this matter within a reasonable time and on the basis of the proper evidence and submissions. However, I want to make it clear that if the claimants believe that a substantial delay is achieved by there being no order for expedition, then they should think again, because that is not the case. Even absent an order for expedition, it remains the situation that any party can apply to the court for directions. I would expect the court to exercise rigorous case management given the significance and importance of the subject matter of the action.
The Council should now get on with completing the task which it was set to achieve by 13 July. Any delay in that regard would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aireborough Neighbourhood Development Forum v Leeds City Council
... ... the setting and special character of historic towns and • to assist in urban ... 3.2 Leeds Metropolitan District is a large metropolitan authority area, where two ... ’ amounted to an increase in supply of another +2,328 units. And in relation to this latter ... Forest of Dean D.C. [2015] P.T.S.R. 1460 , ... 101 The Claimant, and others, were strongly submitting to the Inspectors that ... in the Sustainability Assessment, see Save Historic Newmarket v Forest Heath DC [2011] ... ...
-
Heard v Broadland District Council and Others
...ascertained and no paper chase was required to find out what had been considered and why it had been rejected; see Save Historic Newmarket Ltd v Forest Heath District Council [2011] EWHC 606 (Admin), Collins J, paras 17 and 40. 13 At para 40, he said, and it provides a useful summary of the......