[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Fordson Ltd v Essex County Council [2013] EWHC 4224 (Admin) (31 October 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/4224.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 4224 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 4224 (Admin)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		Thursday, 31 October 2013

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is a renewed application seeking permission to pursue a claim for judicial review against the decision of Essex County Council to allow a waste transfer station to be constructed and used on a site off Winston Way, Chelmsford. The site in question is an industrial and business area, albeit it is close to some residential accommodation.
2. The claimant in this case is a limited company which has been formed for the purposes of this litigation, as I understand it, by some of the residents who will be affected by the proposed waste transfer station.
3. It is clear why there is concern. The nearest house is said to be some 30 metres from the site in question, albeit I note that in the acknowledgement of service it is said that the nearest property is over 50 metres away. That is also perhaps close enough to be concerned about the possible effects from such an activity.
4. Essentially what is said is that there will be an interference with Article 8 rights; and, in addition, because of the effect that it is likely to have upon the value of the properties, Article 1 of the First Protocol rights.
5. Thus it is for Essex, the defendant, to establish that the proposal was justified. That such waste transfer stations are needed in the county is entirely clear, and there is a major problem with waste disposal and the manner of such disposal, partly to meet EU provisions, partly, in any event, as a general proposition.
6. There was a lengthy, detailed report to the relevant decision-making committee. In that, the arguments were put forward why this particular site was an appropriate site. A point is made that this proposed development falls outside Class B, and thus it would be contrary to the plan in question as being a site which was intended for Class B industrial use, the difficulty being that there were no takers for any such construction or development on the site. This, of course, however disagreeable it might be for those who live nearby, would clearly provide employment prospects on that site.
7. What is submitted, essentially, is that it was necessary for it to be shown that alternative sites had been considered and that this was the only site that, as it were, came out of that process and that was needed to justify the siting of the waste transfer station on this particular site. That justification has not been, it is said, carried out.
8. However, it is plain from the report that consideration has been given to whether there is in the Chelmsford area any sensible alternative site and none has been found.
9. Further, it is said that the consultation process was flawed inasmuch as, in particular, the website was incomplete, and the plans of the proposals and the information was based in the library which was only open during very limited hours. And it is said that in the circumstances those who were concerned, such as the neighbours who are represented through the claimants, have not had a proper chance to put forward objections and to understand the true extent of what has been proposed.
10. The reality is that they clearly have been able to put forward objections; and, so far as I can see, there is nothing that can be said to have prejudiced them from the way in which this matter was considered by the decision-making body.
11. The report made the point that Article 8, and indeed Article 1 of the First Protocol, were likely to be in play, and that had to be taken into account; and it was taken into account inasmuch as the balance came down in favour of the economic benefits from the development which was proposed.
12. It seems to me that the judge refusing permission was correct in her view that there was here no arguable case. One sympathises, of course, with those who live nearby what, on any view, can be regarded as a particularly unpleasant neighbour. But the reality is, I am afraid, that it has to go somewhere. Proper consideration, in my view, has been given on the evidence that exists to whether this site was the correct site in all the circumstances; and indeed whether, assuming there was an interference with either of the human rights in question, that interference was proportionate.
13. In all the circumstances, I am entirely satisfied that relief would not be obtained and that this claim is accordingly unarguable. Permission is therefore refused.