TCI Commentary:
Penny Norton and Rhion Jones make the following observations
On the face of it, the protracted means by which Quantum Teddington LLP, the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames and the Government Inspector fought over five acres of playing fields is untypical of planning procedures in the UK, highlighting the tensions that exist between developers and pressure groups, developers and local authorities, and local authorities and Inspectors. In this case it was refreshing to see a local pressure group and local authority sharing a point of view – and winning the argument.
But the resulting triumph for the local authority and pressure group (and humiliation for the developer and the Inspector) was down to consultation: the fact that the modifications to the Local Plan (note: not the Local Plan consultation itself), although consulted upon, were not made clearer, was judged ‘plainly inadequate’ and ‘manifestly unfair’.
This case demonstrates how the principles of consultation must be adhered to at every stage, and that failure to comply with the Gunning Principles can have significant repercussions.
The total confusion in this case may well become the classic illustration of what is proposed in the Politics of Consultation – namely, the consultor’s “duty to define”.
Article: Campaigners have scored a High Court victory against a council’s decision not to designate playing fields in west London as a local green space, after a judge ruled that the authority had carried out a “plainly inadequate” and “manifestly unfair” public consultation on the matter.
The five hectare Udney Park Playing Fields (UPPF) at Teddington were donated to St Mary’s Hospital Medical School by press baron, Lord Beaverbrook, in 1937.
But they have been owned by property developer, Quantum Teddington LLP, since 2015, the High Court in London heard.
Whilst preserving much of the fields for sporting activities, the company hopes to build 107 flats and a doctor’s surgery on the site.
The development is opposed by the London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames, said Mr Justice Waksman.
Later this year, Quantum is set to appeal against the council’s failure to determine its planning application.
At the behest of campaign group, Friends of UPPF, the council had proposed to designate the playing fields as a local green space in its draft local plan.
However, the inspector who carried out the statutory examination of the plan put forward a number of modifications in his April 2018 report to the council.
One of these rejected the fields’ designation as a local green space and, while disagreeing with him on that point, the council considered itself bound by the report.
The end result was that, when the plan was adopted in July last year, the fields were not designated as such.
Challenging the plan, Mark Jopling, a member of Friends of UPPF, argued that a procedural requirement had not been complied with.
The modifications proposed by the inspector, and later circulated for public consultation, did not make clear that they included the de-designation of the fields as a local green space.
And, because of that, Jopling and other objectors to the proposed development were not given a proper opportunity to make representations on the point.
Neither the council, nor the housing secretary resisted Jopling’s judicial review challenge – but Quantum did.
Upholding Jopling’s arguments, the judge said the public consultation exercise was “plainly inadequate,” mainly because it was not clear what was being consulted upon.
Friends of UPFF had only “a very limited opportunity to comment” on the designation issue. “The process was manifestly unfair,” the judge ruled.
It was “certainly conceivable” that the outcome would have been different had Jopling been given a proper opportunity to take part in the consultation, he added.
The judge said he would hear further argument as to the relief that Jopling should be granted in the light of his ruling.
Last week, a High Court judge quashed a planning inspector’s consent for a new telephone kiosk in central London after a judge ruled that such structures served a ‘dual purpose’ of both communications and advertising and therefore should not benefit from permitted development rights.
Also last week, the Court of Appeal rejected an applicant’s claim that the strict six-week time limit for the lodging of legal challenges against planning appeal decisions breached his human rights, after a series of unfortunate events meant he missed the deadline.
Article originally appeared on Planning Resource (This is a paid subscription service)
The Institute cannot confirm the accuracy of this story or confirm that it presents a balanced view. If you feel this is inaccurate, we would welcome your perspective and evidence that this is the case.
