Perry, R (On the Application Of) v Newmark Properties Ltd & Ors
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DBE
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Environmental Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The judicial review challenges regarding planning permissions granted by the London Borough of Hackney for a Stoke Newington development were dismissed. Key issues included viability appraisal assessment, heritage asset impact, and procedural compliance with EIA regulations. The court held that the defendant acted lawfully and reasonably, observing legal duties concerning planning process and heritage conservation. Though a screening opinion omission in JR1 presented a procedural flaw, it was deemed non-prejudicial given the subsequent valid assessment in JR2.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Patterson:
Introduction
These are claims for judicial review of two planning permissions granted by the London Borough of Hackney, the defendant, dated 8 August 2013 and 14 February 2014 respectively. Each planning permission was granted in the following terms, namely, for:
“Demolition of buildings on land at Wilmer Place and the rear parts of 193-201 Stoke Newington High Street, with retention of front Stoke Newington High Street façade, in connection with associated planning application for redevelopment to provide a retail unit at ground floor level with 53 units above.”
The claimant has lived in Stoke Newington since 2001. He has been an active participant in both planning applications as a co-ordinator of the “Stokey Local” campaign which has opposed recent development proposals at Wilmer Place.
The first interested party is the applicant for planning permission. The second interested party has taken no part in the proceedings. In the rest of this judgement when I refer to the interested party it is to the first interested party.
The proposed development is on a 0.51 hectare site within the district centre of Stoke Newington. The application proposals involve the partial demolition of the buildings on the site and its redevelopment with a 4,142 sq. m. food store on the ground floor with fifty-three residential units above. Nine of those residential units are to be affordable dwellings.
On each occasion the planning application was accompanied by an application for conservation area consent.
The claimant seeks orders quashing each of the planning permissions and conservation area consents. For ease of reference I will refer to the planning permission dated 8 August 2013 as JR1 and that dated the 14 February 2014 as JR2.
Issues
There are 6 main issues. They are:
In both applications was there a proper consideration of the viability appraisal with regard to affordable housing in the development?
In both applications was there was a proper assessment of the impact of the development on heritage assets?
In JR1 only, did the defendant fail to adopt and publish on the planning register a screening opinion in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 , the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and obligations under the EU Treaty?
In JR2 only, did the defendant act unlawfully in failing to provide the claimant with the proposed section 106 obligation to enable the pu