Carnegie (On Behalf of the Oaks Action Group), R (On the Application Of) v Ealing
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DBE
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, the London Borough of Ealing granted planning permission for the redevelopment of the Oaks Shopping Centre in Acton, which was challenged by a local resident. The crucial issues were the alleged unlawful substitution of a planning committee member and an asserted inadequacy in handling heritage assets. The court concluded that substitution was lawful and the officer’s report addressed heritage assets appropriately. Legal principles reaffirmed include the democratic nature of planning decisions, the weight afforded to heritage assets, and expectations of impartiality in planning committee decision-making. The claim was also considered within the relevant timeframe, despite procedural discrepancies.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Patterson:
Introduction
On 8 April 2014 the London Borough of Ealing granted planning permission for the redevelopment of the Oaks Shopping Centre and adjoining car park in Churchfield Road, High Street, Acton as follows:
“Partial refurbishment, demolition and redevelopment of shopping centre and adjacent car park to provide 2 storey residential accommodation fronting Hooper’s Mews, 5 storey accommodation fronting Churchfield Road (retail on ground floor with residential above), 9 storey accommodation to the corner of Churchfield Road/burial ground and 8 storey residential accommodation with a basement level across the remainder of the site. New foodstore to basement level (4,879 sq m) together with 4 new retail units (14 sq m, 78 sq m, 16 sq m and 43 sq m), 6 refurbished retail units (2,444 sq m), 142 residential units (52 x 1 bed, 50 x 2 bed, 39 x 3 bed and 1 x 4 bed) and ancillary service yard, storage, plant, circulation space, amenity space and play space, provision of 27 car parking spaces, including 15 disabled spaces (197 retail and 30 residential), 284 cycle parking spaces (84 retain, 14 employee and 186 residential), with vehicular access from Churchfield Road and access to the residential units off Churchfield Road, Hooper’s Mews and burial ground. Provision of two pedestrian links between High Street and burial ground.”
The claimant is a resident of Acton. With others he formed the Oaks Action Group to respond to plans for redevelopment of the Oaks Shopping Centre.
The defendant is the local planning authority which determined the planning application. The interested party is the applicant for planning permission.
Permission to apply for judicial review was refused by Mr Justice Mitting on 27 June 2014.
An application for oral renewal of permission was made but upon application by the interested party, Master Gidden ordered that the renewal hearing be vacated and a rolled up hearing be substituted. That came before me on 7 November 2014.
Ground of challenge
The claimant challenges the planning permission on the following grounds:
That the substitution of Councillor Gulaid on the planning committee was unlawful;
That the officer report was flawed in how it dealt with heritage assets affected by the proposed development.
The defendant and the interested party contend that the claim is out of time and that it should be dismissed on grounds of delay.
Factual background
The site is the existing Oaks Shopping Centr