Kendall v Rochford District Council & Ano
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- Mr Justice Lindblom
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Environmental Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Mrs. Linda Kendall challenged the Rochford District Council’s 2014 adoption of the Rochford District Allocations Plan, alleging flawed notification and consultation processes. The court found the council's consultation on the draft plan lawful but identified a breach in the method of public consultation under the SEA directive. Despite this, the court held that the whole plan-making process provided sufficient public participation, causing no substantial prejudice. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion, denying Mrs. Kendall any relief, relying on principles of effectiveness and proportionality.
Judgment
Mr Justice Lindblom:
Introduction
This case is about the lawfulness of the public consultation undertaken by a local planning authority when preparing a development plan document under the provisions for plan-making in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“ the 2004 Act ”).
The claimant, Mrs Linda Kendall, is a resident of Rayleigh in Essex, which is in the administrative area of the first defendant, Rochford District Council. By an application under section 113 of the 2004 Act she challenges the council’s adoption, in February 2014, of the Rochford District Allocations Plan. She was an objector to the plan during its preparation, and, in September 2013, took part in the examination held by the inspector appointed by the second defendant, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. She now seeks an order to quash the plan, at least in part. She says there were serious flaws in the council’s notification and consultation of herself and others during the plan-making process and also, before that, in the preparation of the Rochford District Core Strategy – in breach, she says, of the relevant statutory requirements for plan-making and the regime for Strategic Environmental Assessment (“SEA”). The council resists the application. It maintains that the plan process was, at every stage, transparent, inclusive and fair. It says it complied with all of the relevant requirements for consultation. In his acknowledgment of service the Secretary of State said he intended to resist the application, but he later decided to take no further part in the proceedings.
On 11 June 2014 I made an order granting costs protection to Mrs Kendall at the level applicable to Aarhus Convention claims under CPR r.45.43 and PD 45, namely £5,000, with a reciprocal cap of £35,000 on the council’s potential liability in costs. I did so for this reason. Although it is not a “claim for judicial review” but a statutory challenge, the substance of Mrs Kendall’s application to the court is clearly within the ambit of the Aarhus Convention, and in my view justified the exercise of the court’s general discretion as to costs to give both her and the council the level of protection to which they would have been entitled under the arrangements in CPR r.45.43. Since I made that order the Court of Appeal has, on 27 November 2014, allowed the appeal in Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Venn [2014] EWCA Civ 1539 . It held that the costs