Leger-Davey & Anor v First Secretary of State & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 01, 2004, [2004] EWHC 512 (Admin)
Linked as:
Extract
Leger-Davey & Anor v First Secretary of State & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 01, 2004, [2004] EWHC 512 (Admin)
CO/4958/2003 C0/4732/2003
Neutral Citation Number: [2004] EWHC 512 (Admin)IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Royal Courts of Justice StrandLondon WC2 Monday, 1 March 2004 B E F O R E:MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN - - - - - - - PHOEBE ST LEGER-DAVEY AND JAMES HARRISON (CLAIMANTS) -v- FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE(DEFENDANT) WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL ORANGE PCS LTD (INTERESTED PARTIES)JANE LEE(CLAIMANTS) -v- THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT(DEFENDANT) ORANGE PCS LTD(INTERESTED PARTY) - - - - - - -Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AGTel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) - - - - - - -MR DAVID WOLFE (instructed by Leigh Day & Co, Clerkenwell, London and Public Law, Moseley) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANTSMR TIM MOULD (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANTMR PETER GOATLEY (instructed by Burgess Salmon) appeared on behalf of the INTERESTED PARTY, ORANGE- - - - - - -J U D G M E N T1. MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: There are two applications under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("the Act") before the court. In the first application the claimant seeks to quash a decision by an Inspector appointed by the first defendant allowing an appeal by the second defendant, Orange PCS Limited ("Orange"), and granting planning permission for the erection of an 11.79 metre high monopole and an equipment cabin at Byron Avenue, Winchester. Orange's application for planning permission was originally granted by the local planning authority. That planning permission was quashed by consent in judicial review proceedings. On reconsideration the local planning authority refused planning permission and Orange appealed to the first defendant. 2. The local planning authority's reasons for refusal were three-fold: (1) concern of local residents about the perceived risk to their health; (2) visual intrusion, and (3) Orange had not shown that alternative sites had been fully explored.3. The Inspector held an inquiry over nine days, commencing on 29th October 2002. The inquiry did not conclude until 2nd July 2003, by which time the Inspector had visited the site on 14th March 2003. His decision letter is dated 19th August 2003. 4. The site is in a predominantly residential area, and the claimants live and attend school within 250 to 300 metres of the proposed site for the monopole. The Inspector identified three main issues in the appeal. Firstly, the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding locality; secondly, the effect on the amenity and well-being of those who live, learn and work in the locality arising from the perceived risk to their health; and thirdly, whether any detriment to the amenity and well-being of the local community coupled with any adverse visual impact were sufficient to justify withholding ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
