Morris, R (on the application of) v Wealden District Council
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE COLLINS
Areas of Law
- Environmental Law
- Administrative Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves the challenge to a planning permission granted to Wadhurst Tennis Club for floodlighting on two tennis courts. Previous applications were refused or quashed, and the renewed application in 2013 was granted but challenged. The court focused on whether the harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and local residents outweighed the recreational benefits. The court held that the planning permission did not conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the AONB and that any recreational benefits did not justify the significant environmental harm, ultimately quashing the planning permission.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is a claim which seeks to quash a planning permission granted by the Defendant to the Interested Parties, particularly Wadhurst Tennis Club, to enable a development to take place which consisted of the erection of nine poles and floodlighting to enable tennis to be played on two particular courts out of four during the hours of darkness. The use of the floodlights was limited by a condition to October until April and then only until 9.00 pm in the evening and from 8.00 am in the morning.
This, in fact, is I think the fourth application that has been made to erect floodlighting at the tennis club. The first was in August 2005. That was turned down by the Defendant.
In March 2008, a further application was made. This was, despite a recommendation of refusal by the officers, allowed by the committee of the Council. That was challenged by judicial review. It was accepted by the Defendant that the decision could not be sustained and so the decision was quashed by consent in August 2009.
The application was renewed in 2010. Again, for the same reasons, namely that it would have significant and unjustified harm to the environment, the officers recommended refusal, but the committee again granted it. This again was challenged by judicial review. Mr Rabinder Singh QC, as he then was, sitting as a Deputy Judge, quashed the permission on the basis that there had been a failure to consider whether an EIA statement was needed. In Mr Singh's view, it was needed and at least a screening opinion should have been obtained. There was also a seperate issue in relation to one of the conditions, but that is not material.
Again, the application was renewed in June 2013. Again, the officers recommended refusal. There had been an EIA screening opinion, but this indicated that in terms of the EIA directive, it was not a case in which significant harm to the environment could have been established and, therefore, there was no need for more than a screening opinion. That was a ground which was originally pursued in this claim, but has not been pursued before me. I say that was a ground. I mean that it was wrong not to require a full EIA. The committee, as I say, decided to grant permission. The decision in question was issued on 24 December 2013, hence these proceedings.
Permission was originally refused on the papers by Cranston J, but, as it happens, I granted permission on a renewed oral application. I also gave permission to add a g