BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Romeo Dance Academy Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Milton Keynes Council [2022] EWHC 475 (Admin) (04 March 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/475.html Cite as: [2022] EWHC 475 (Admin) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
PLANNING COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
____________________
The Queen (on the application of ROMEO DANCE ACADEMY LIMITED) |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL |
Defendant |
____________________
Mr Matthew Henderson (instructed by the Defendant's legal department) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 24 February 2022
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Upper Tribunal Judge Elizabeth Cooke:
The factual background
"… an application for planning permission by an interested planning authority to develop any land of that authority, or for development of any land by an interested planning authority or by an interested planning authority jointly with any other person, shall be determined by the authority concerned, unless the application is referred to the Secretary of State under section 77 of the 1990 Act for determination by him."
The Scheme of Delegation
"2. No delegated decision shall be made where the development in the opinion of the delegated officer is likely to be of a controversial nature, taking into account such factors as the scale and nature of the proposed development, the history and sensitivity of the site and the likely level of public interest.
5. No delegated decision on a planning application shall be made if a written request or e-mail to the Head of Planning or nominated officer is received within the specified consultation period i.e. 28 days, giving notice of a representation from;
(a) A Ward Councillor in respect of an application within their Ward.
(b) A Ward Councillor where an application in an adjacent Ward will have an impact on their Ward.
(c) Any Ward Councillor, where with the agreement of the Chair, it can be demonstrated that the environmental planning effect on the Borough of Milton Keynes is significant.
(d) The Clerk or Secretary of a Parish or Town Council in respect of an application within their Parish.
(e) The Clerk or Secretary of a Town or Parish Council where an application in an adjacent Parish will have an impact on their Parish.
(f) In the case of a 'Minor' or 'Other' application or a Tree Preservation Order, 5 or more members of the public from different households.
(g) In the case of a Major application 20 or more members of the public from different households."
1. The Defendant failed to turn its mind or have regard to Paragraph 2 of the Scheme of Delegation, which is neither mentioned in the Officer's Report nor the Permission;
2. If the Defendant did have regard to Paragraph 2 of the Scheme of Delegation, then it misinterpreted the ambit of Paragraph 2; and/or
3. If the Defendant did have regard to Paragraph 2 of the Scheme of Delegation, then its decision that the development was not likely to be of a controversial nature was taken on the basis of irrelevant considerations and was one which no reasonable decision-maker could have made.
1. Did the Defendant fail to turn its mind to paragraph 2 of the Scheme of Delegation?
2. Did the Defendant misinterpret the ambit of paragraph 2?
"In general, the proposal is considered to comply with relevant policies in Plan:MK(2019) as stated in the below brief assessment.
The proposal would result in loss of part of the existing youth and community facility …; it would use the area which has been approved for office administration at the first floor to accommodate 19 homeless bed spaces. As the proposal would retain majority of the youth and community facility, it is not considered contrary to policy CC3. The principle of the proposed temporary accommodation is also supported by policy HN6. … Although the noise disturbance will need further assessment in accordance with policy NE6, however, I think a condition to require a noise management plan can sufficiently address this.
In conservation aspect, Historic England advised they don't need to be notified …. I am still waiting for Highway Officer's comments, but so far, I don't foresee any significant highway issues would be caused by the proposal. Although no additional parking will be provided for the proposal, most homeless people who will be living there probably won't have a car, and there are abundant public car parking spaces around the building can accommodate temporary parking and picking up and dropping off."
"Of the 25 objections, I believe the majority are from customers to the Dance Studio indicating that there has been an active attempt to garner objection (i.e. how would those persons otherwise know about the proposals), and they circulate around the fear that the two uses may not be compatible due to disturbance from the dance school. With this nature of objection taken into consideration, I don't consider it is in the public interest, taking account of it needing to be of a wider scale of public interest, and thus there is no requirement for it to be presented to DCP or DCC."
3. Was the decision that the development was not likely to be of a controversial nature was one which no reasonable decision-maker could have made?
Section 31(3C) and (3D) of the Senior Courts Act 1981
"(3C) When considering whether to grant leave to make an application for judicial review, the High Court—
(a) may of its own motion consider whether the outcome for the applicant would have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred, and
(b) must consider that question if the defendant asks it to do so.
(3D) If, on considering that question, it appears to the High Court to be highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different, the court must refuse to grant leave."
Conclusion