“Where the application for judicial review relates to a decision made by the Secretary of State or local planning authority under the planning acts, the claim form must be filed not later than six weeks after the grounds to make the claim first arose.”
“(6) Where the High Court considers that there has been undue delay in making an application for judicial review, the court may refuse to grant— (a) leave for the making of the application; or (b) any relief sought on the application, if it considers that the granting of the relief sought would be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person or would be detrimental to good administration. (7) Subsection (6) is without prejudice to any enactment or rule of court which has the effect of limiting the time within which an application for judicial review may be made.”
“51 For the reasons we have given, the appeal must be dismissed. The opposite conclusion would not meet the justice of this particular case. No precedent is being set here. We stress once again that the court will not lightly grant a lengthy extension of time for a challenge to a planning decision by a claim for judicial review, nor will it lightly grant relief after a long delay. It will insist on promptness in bringing such challenges in all but the most exceptional circumstances. Here the circumstances are most exceptional. They are wholly extraordinary. This is a case where it can truly be said that the exception proves the rule.”
“The developers were entitled to rely upon the planning permission as valid and lawful unless a court ruled otherwise, and none of the other steps taken by Mr Gerber, such as complaining about maladministration, changed that. As Richards J observed in R(Gavin) v Haringey London Borough Council[2004] 2 P & CR 13 , para 69, “Applicants for planning permission are entitled to rely on the local planning authority to discharge the responsibilities placed upon it”; when they are granted planning permission they are entitled to rely upon it as a lawful grant of permission unless it is set aside by a court. What was required to change that position in this case was prompt legal action to challenge the lawfulness of the planning permission, if Mr Gerber wished to stop the development from proceeding.”
“The planning permission obtained on the site is for an open industrial warehousing use and the proposal is for a single building…. The planning permission does allow for 24-7 operation and it is likely that the building may be operated on that basis.”
“As an overview, the works comprise the construction of one single storey warehouse/production unit complete with office accommodation. External site works include access roads, hard standings with lorry parking, trailers, and car parking spaces together with associated landscaping and drainage. The aim of this letter is to offer my reassurance that during the construction phase, I will be doing my utmost to ensure that the planned works do not impact on the neighbouring residential and business premises. As on all construction sites, the new development will inevitably bring a slight increase in traffic and noise, however, we have been liaising closely with the local authority amongst others post demolition and will be monitoring this daily on site to ensure any increase remains within the permitted parameters as agreed with the local authority. … As the scheme progresses over the coming months, I intend to circulate a regular letter drop to keep everybody in the surrounding area fully up to speed with our progress.”
“During the period, I’ve received several complaints from the residents who’ve raised their concerns over the levels of vibration they’re experiencing coming from the works on site and I wanted to address this within. The activity that is causing the vibration is generated from the RIC machine which in essence is a large hammer dropped from height that compacts and strengthens the ground prior to construction works commencing. Several concerns have been raised around the impact this could potentially have on a property. As a bit of background, we undertook some trial testing with the machine prior to works commencing to establish the level of noise and vibration the works would be likely to generate, and we established that the proposal we had in place would’ve exceeded the permitted parameters which we’re governed by. The compaction methods were then redesigned to bring us way below those parameters. We continue to monitor the noise and vibration levels daily and, in the period, have placed the equipment directly outside of concerned residents’ properties to offer some reassurance. The monitoring results have been shared with the Senior Environmental Health and Planning Officers who’re involved with the scheme. Whilst I understand the works may be disruptive and will naturally generate concern, the data has been reviewed by the relevant authorities who’ve confirmed that the monitoring data is acceptable, and the works pose no threat to the structural integrity of the properties adjacent to the site.”
“mainly consisted of earthworks, RIC (Rapid Impact Compaction), RDC (Rolled Dynamic Compaction) and ground stabilization across the building footprint and we remain on program to complete in September 2024.”
“In the last period, I received several concerns from residents regarding the levels of vibration they’d experienced coming from the works on site which hopefully I addressed in my previous update and further communications. You’ll be pleased to learn that the work with the RIC machine is drawing to a close and we’re on target to complete in the run up to Christmas. Again, please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused. To make you all aware, the next stage of the build is the erection of the steel frame which is due to commence prior to Christmas and may run into March 2024.”
“In the period, the earth works which have consisted of RIC (Rapid Impact Compaction), RDC (Rolled Dynamic Compaction) and ground stabilization across the site footprint have now completed and our subcontractor DGS are in the process of demobilizing from site. The floor decks to the office mezzanines have been installed and we’re aiming to pour the concrete floors this month. The steel frame erection progressed at pace and is now complete. The roofing and cladding panels are in the process of being installed which is likely to take circa 12 weeks. The groundwork and drainage connections commenced mid-February and we remain on programme to complete the scheme in September 2024.”
“12. I was aware that the old warehouse was being demolished in the spring of 2022 but I had assumed that an application for new housing would be made at some point later down the line because Corby has a surplus of warehousing as it is; one had recently burnt down in the area. I had not heard anything about the development so I didn’t think that any replacement would have an adverse effect on my property. 13. I was aware of the ground works commencing in late September 2023 and the noise and vibrations affecting my property. Again, I did not think that any development would be affecting my property as I wasn’t aware of any notice of a planning application and I hadn’t been consulted about any development proposals. 14. I had been going to work and coming back in the dark and hadn’t been going into my garden because it was cold and dark. It was only on16 January 2024 that I came back from work to see a large framework being erected directly on to the back of my garden. I started posting on Facebook asking whether anybody knew anything about what was going on. Other residents responded saying they hadn’t heard anything about the development. 15. By 18 January it was clearer that a large building was being constructed and by the morning of 19 January the steel structure had been erected right across the length of my garden boundary. Horrified, I went onto the Council’s website and found the 2022 planning permission…. I straightaway emailed Farjana Mazumder at the Council …. ”
“In relation to your fifth query, you raised whether the council has asked the developer to pause their works on site, whilst any planning enforcement activity is assessed, and if required, acted upon, or whilst the council reviews its position around legal advice on next steps. I can confirm that discussions have taken place with the developers and architects as recently as last Friday in which they were asked to pause the works for a period of time. They stated that whilst they were aware of the concerns being raised there were no plans to pause the works. Finally, you raised that residents overwhelmingly expressed the view that North Northamptonshire Council ought to call a judicial review on itself to allow for a proper judicial process to decide as to whether a safe and legal planning decision has been made on this site. We have sought legal advice on our options and have carefully considered what action we should take. With the limitations of a Judicial Review, as well as our desire to find the underlying cause of this issue, we do not believe a Judicial Review is the best course of action. As Leader, I am keen to see step change in the service we deliver which having received advice a Judicial Review will not provide. ”
“2.14 a) The Site is located within the Earlstrees Industrial Estate which is identified within the Part 2 Local Plan as an Established Industrial Estate; b) Development at the Site would fulfil the economic role of sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF (Paras 8 and 11) and would contribute to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by helping to ensure that sufficient land is available to support growth in accordance with the strategic vision and objectives of the Local Plan; c) Policy 9 Part 2 Local Plan relates to employment uses in Established Industrial Estates and states that “proposals for employment use (under Class …. B2 and B8) and for modernising and/or enhancing the physical environment and infrastructure will be supported’’; d) Policy 22 of the Joint Core Strategy seeks to safeguard existing and committed employment sites. Enhancements are sought through refurbishment and regeneration of previously developed land; a) Policy 24 of the JCS relates to logistics and states that proposals for large scale strategic distribution will be supported where they facilitate the delivery of a mix of jobs and are of the highest viable standards of design and sustainability; b) The proposals would wholly accord with the criteria of Policy 24 on the following grounds: i. ‘Medium-sized’ sites, such as the application Site, are better suited to meet the specification needs of larger buildings because they make a more efficient use of the land available; ii. The Site has good access to the strategic road network; iii. As forming part of an Established Industrial Estate and given the former use of the Site, it retains good access to local labour supply and is accessible to the local workforce through a variety of transport modes; iv. The proposals will achieve the highest possible standards of design and environmental performance; v. The previous occupiers of the Site operated on an unrestricted 24-hour basis. The acceptability of the Site to operate on a 24-hour basis in this location has already therefore been accepted in principle by virtue of the previous occupiers; vi. The application would be supported by a Transport Assessment to demonstrate that there will be no detrimental impact on the surrounding highway network; vii. The proposed service yard area will fully meet the operational requirements of the building and requirements of the HGV’s that would utilise the yard area. c) To the northern boundary the separation distances to the residential properties at the rear of the Site have been increased when compared to the previous buildings. The previous distance between existing buildings at the rear and the residential buildings at its closest point was 10m and furthest point was 26.5m. The proposed building will be positioned 18.2m away from residential properties at its closest and 31.4m at its furthest; d) By setting the building further away from the northern boundary the proposals are able to introduce a substantial landscape buffer with a mix of evergreen species which will help to screen the building from the rear residential properties. This is an improvement over the existing scenario; e) An overshadowing exercise has been undertaken. This demonstrates that the gardens at the rear of the Site, being south facing, will continue to have sunlight and the proposal including the landscaping does not impact on the gardens amenity and the scheme does not overshadow or create a towering effect over the properties. The section submitted within the landscape pack illustrates a view from the residential properties to the building – which shows that the proposed landscaping will provide effective screening and indeed an improved outlook for the residential properties compared to the previous buildings on the Site; f) The scale and massing of the proposal respond to modern occupier requirements for buildings which are designed specifically for the purpose of accommodating modern industrial processes, and for the storage of goods and products. The proposals will provide a density and volume of development which will enable the efficient operation of the Site, whilst responding to its context and setting; g) The scale and massing of the proposed building is considered to be appropriate within the local context, evidenced in the Townscape & Visual Impact Assessment. The design and proposed material finish of the building is considered to be acceptable and appropriate given the local context and industrial character of the area to the immediate east. The introduction of new, modern materials and design is expected to be a material enhancement to the local environment; h) A Townscape and Visual Appraisal (TVA) has been prepared by Mood Landscape which includes a set of verified views from a series of views around the Site. These photographs on which the proposal is shown were taken during winter months. The proposed landscaping is shown on these photographs taken in the summer months, so that it can be clearly seen how the proposed landscaping will look when grown; i) The TVA sets out a context analysis of the surroundings and confirms that the setting and character of the surroundings is predominantly industrial in nature with pockets of residential to the north and south of the Site. Nine viewpoints have been chosen – the views presented in the TVA show that the setting back of the building from Earlstrees Road and the inclusion of a fully landscaped acoustic fence will create character and interest to this frontage. It offers a significantly improved frontage over and above the existing Site arrangement and can be seen as a benefit of the proposals; j) The TVA concludes that due to the context of the surroundings, character of the area and nature of the existing industrial Site, the extent of townscape and visual effects of the proposals are considered to be limited. The proposals are consistent with the surrounding character and while the proposals will have an effect, the effect is not considered to be harmful; k) The Site forms part of a wider designated industrial estate. The principle of the proposed development to provide new industrial employment uses is considered to be acceptable given the Sites location within an Established Industrial Estate. The Site comprises previously developed land and is in a sustainable location to support the proposed development. The proposals will generate new jobs for the local economy and support economic growth on currently vacant employment land.”
“b) The overall height of the building was reduced thereby providing an internal haunch height of 12.5 metres to the haunch (reduced from 15 metres). The max building height to the apex was now proposed at 15.75m above the finished floor level; c) The approximate apex of the building was 2.5 metres lower than presented as part of the pre-application submission; d) A full landscape scheme was drawn and provided having consideration to the residential amenity to the rear (north) of the building; e) A full Townscape Visual Impact Assessment was produced to illustrate the design in the context of its surroundings….”
“3. Noise generated by activities and operations on the site shall not exceed +5dB rating level as determined at any noise sensitive receptor in accordance with British Standard 4142:2014 Rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas (or any superseding revision).”
“5. The cumulative rating level, determined at any noise sensitive receptor, (determined using the guidance of BS 4142:2014 Methods for rating and assessing industrial and commercial sound) (or any amendments or modifications) of noise emitted by activities and operations on the site shall not exceed +5dB above the existing measured background noise level LA90,T during the day and night time period.” “7. Prior to occupation of the development, a scheme for the control of noise and vibration of any fixed plant (including ventilation, refrigeration and air conditioning) or ducting system to be used in pursuance of this permission shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The rating level of the noise emitted from any fixed plant shall be at least 5 dB below existing background noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor and shall have no significant tonal component within any 1/3 Octave Band Level during the operation of the system. Where any 1/3 octave band level is 5 dB or above the adjacent band levels the tone is deemed to be significant.”
“….. I take the view that it was reasonable for Wolseley not to stop the works, even though it can be characterised as having taken a calculated commercial risk in proceeding as it did. It had an apparently valid planning permission. The time limit for a legal challenge to that permission had expired well over two years previously. It had had one false start in August 2002 with the contractor which went into liquidation. It had then entered into a legal commitment with Brennan on April 1, 2003 which, whatever its precise analysis, would expose it to a substantial claim if the works were stopped. In those circumstances I do not think that a complaint about the validity of the permission or the threat of proceedings to challenge it were sufficient to make it unreasonable to continue with the works. No doubt contractors are faced not infrequently with complaints about developments that do not mature into actual challenges. In the present case, moreover, the claimant’s own explanation for the time spent in April and May before a claim for judicial review was lodged is that, especially in view of the lapse of time since the grant of planning permission, it was necessary to carry out detailed investigations and give careful consideration to whether a claim was justified. Wolseley cannot fairly be criticised for carrying on with the works while the claimant was considering his position.”