Ellaway v Cardiff County Council
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Environmental Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the case, the court examined the legality of the local planning authority's decisions concerning the discharge of pre-commencement conditions and the decision not to take enforcement action regarding an energy from waste facility in Cardiff. The Claimant argued that these actions were unlawful under common law and European law, specifically questioning consultation processes and the principle of certainty. The court upheld the planning authority's decisions, finding that the processes met regulatory requirements, that Viridor did not gain an unfair advantage, and emphasizing the permissible scope of retrospective planning permissions.
Judgment
Mr Justice Wyn Williams:
Introduction
The First Defendant is the local planning authority for the city of Cardiff. On 29 June 2010 it granted planning permission to the First Interested Party (hereinafter referred to as “Viridor”) for the erection of “an energy from waste facility to include a combined heat and power plant, pre-treatment/recycling facility, incinerator bottom ash recycling and ancillary offices” upon an area of land (hereinafter known as “the site”) at Trident Park, Glass Avenue, off Ocean Way in the city of Cardiff. The permission specified that the development was to be carried out on site in accordance with the application and accompanying plans “subject to compliance with the conditions specified hereunder”. Twenty five conditions were then listed. Conditions 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 24 were “pre-commencement conditions” i.e. they required that compliance with the conditions should take place before any development was commenced on the site. Condition 1 provided that the permitted development should begin “before the expiration of five years from the date of [the] planning permission”.
The grant of planning permission had been opposed by the Claimant and an organisation known as “Cardiff Against the Incinerator” (hereinafter referred to as “CATI”). However, neither the Claimant nor CATI sought to impugn the grant of planning permission following its grant.
On 20 July 2012 Viridor commenced development on the site. It is not disputed that by then it had applied for the discharge of all the pre-commencement conditions and that the Defendant had purported to discharge all but one of those conditions. In the months that followed 20 July 2012 Viridor continued to undertake works on site; in the same period CATI made representations to the Defendant to the effect that Viridor was acting unlawfully and that appropriate enforcement action should be taken.
On 13 February 2013 the Planning Committee of the Defendant resolved against taking enforcement action; it also resolved to discharge the pre-commencement conditions. The Committee took that decision on the basis of a detailed report prepared by planning officers (hereinafter referred to as “the officer’s report”) - see Trial Bundle Volume 2, pages 1175 to 1207. In these proceedings the Claimant asserts that the decisions taken by the Defendant on 13 February 2013 were unlawful and she seeks quashing orders in respect of them.
The relevant facts