|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Tata Steel UK Ltd v Newport City Council  EWCA Civ 1626 (23 November 2010)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 1626
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
(MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS)
Cardiff Civil Justice Centre
2 Park Street
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE ELIAS
LORD JUSTICE PITCHFORD
| TATA STEEL UK LTD
|- and –
|NEWPORT CITY COUNCIL
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Ian Albutt appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Carnwath:
"If the planning permission was now quashed the human rights of the Hendry family would be severely prejudiced, given that there are no other authorised gypsy sites in Newport either temporary or permanent to which they could be transferred and the tolerated authorised encampment at Stephenson Street is no longer available for their occupation due to the ongoing works at the transporter bridge."
He says they would be significantly affected by the outcome and the delay in pursuing the challenge will mean living on the site for over four months.
"I can see an argument that the prejudice to the Hendry family consequent upon a quashing order is minimised if the reality is that they will remain on site for a substantial period of time. On balance, however, I reject that view. If the planning permission is quashed the occupation of the site would be unlawful in planning terms and there would be an unnecessary legal lacuna.
That leads me to the final factor which in my judgment is to be taken into account in the exercise of my discretion. The planning permission subsists for two years only. In my judgment, in the particular context of this case, that militates against the making of a quashing order. I do not regard it as conducive to good administration that a significant part of the two-year period should be taken up with uncertainty over whether or not the Hendry family is lawfully entitled to be on the site. There is a distinct danger that a quashing order would lead to further disputes, yet all the while the Hendry family would remain on site."
"The fact that about two months went by before these proceedings were commenced would have induced in the minds of the adults of the family at least a hope, and probably a belief, that no challenge would be made. That hope was then dashed. In my judgment that state of affairs is properly to be regarded as prejudicial."
Lord Justice Elias:
Lord Justice Pitchford:
Order: Appeal allowed; permission quashed