Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

COUNCIL ORDERED TO THINK AGAIN OVER ITS SCRAPPING OF PLANS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

  • Comment
Great Yarmouth BC's decision to scrap plans for residential development on land at Filby has been overturned by a j...
Great Yarmouth BC's decision to scrap plans for residential development on land at Filby has been overturned by a judge. The council will now have to reconsider its decision in light of the judge's ruling at London's high court.

In making his 'think-again' order Mr justice Gibbs ruled that the council had failed to give adequate and intelligible reasons for rejecting the recommendation of a local planning inspector who had taken the view there was nothing inappropriate about the plans for the development.

He quashed the parts of the new Great Yarmouth Local Plan that relate to the non-allocation of the Thrigby Road land for residential development.

Norwich-based East Anglia Property Ltd, and its director, Alan Jones, who own the land, claimed that the council had made provision for five homes on their two hectares of land on Thrigby Road, Filby, in its draft Local Plan, but ultimately rejected the plans after local objection.

However, the company argued that a Local Plan inspector had concluded, in a report into objections to the scheme in April 1998, that: the development would not be inappropriate; the site was unexceptional in any respect; the contribution it made to the setting of the village was strictly limited; and the site had the capacity to accommodate development in depth.

The council, at that point, accepted the inspector's recommendations and modified the draft Local Plan to allow development at the site, subject to a limit of five houses.

But then, in September 1999, the council's borough-wide Local Plan working party considered a report on new objections received about the plans, and ultimately, in May 2000, the council decided to reject the residential development scheme. It stated that it had resolved to attach different weights to relevant planning issues from the inspector.

However, the landowners' lawyer, Peter Village, argued in court that the council had failed to make its reasons clear for rejecting the inspector's recommendations, and said that his clients were 'left to speculate on what precisely were the reasons behind the council's decision.'

He said: 'In merely resolving that it attached different weights to the relevant planning issues, the council failed to identify which of the planning issues it placed greater weight upon, and why.'

Michael Dowling, for the council, had argued that the council had given clear reasons for its decision in an officer's report to the working party, and that the decision should not be quashed in any event because the final outcome was likely to be the same when the matter was reconsidered.

Now, Mr justice Gibbs has backed the landowners' claim, and ordered the council to rethink its decision on the allocation of residential development at the site.

He said that the lack of reasoning left it unclear on what basis the decision had been reached, and also left him unable to predict what the result might be when the matter falls to be reconsidered.

He said: 'I do notthink that it can be said that the outcome is likely to be the same - it may be the same, it may not be. Justice requires that the decision should not stand. It must therefore be quashed and the matter sent back for reconsideration by the council.'

STRAND NEWS SERVICE

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.