Advisors have been caught in the middle of a dispute surrounding a demolition project…
After living in the area for 13 years and being an active campaigner against the development, Nicholas Perry failed in his battle to block the granted planning permissions for a local project.
The claimant, Nicholas Perry, of Stoke Newington, applied for judicial review regarding two planning permissions which were granted by the defendant, the London Borough of Hackney, over the demolition of properties in Wilmer Place and at the rear of 193-201 Stoke Newington High Street, with plans to redevelop the site with a food store on the ground floor and 53 residential units above.
Newmark Properties Ltd was the firm that successfully applied for the mixed-use development permissions of the 0.51 hectare site, which included conservation area consent.
The six issues discussed in the current case involved whether there was proper consideration for affordable housing, the impact on heritage assets, and if the council acted unlawfully, amongst other issues.
Newmark Properties had applied three times before being granted permission by the Borough, however it was questioned whether there was proper consideration for the Borough to accept 17 per cent of affordable housing.
It was found in court that external property surveyors advised and reviewed the appraisal which dealt with the issue of affordable housing. The report from the showed that the level of affordable housing was “fully justified”, as it was the maximum amount of affordable housing that “could be achieved”.
Newmark Properties had instructed advisors carry out an independent appraisal, however Mr Perry argued he did not see a copy of the review before it was granted.
Mr Perry also argued that officers had given wrong advice to councilors regarding the misunderstanding of the legal position. However the judge stated that the officers had in fact acted lawfully.
At one point Mr Perry alleged that the FVA was written in an “incomprehensible” language, if you were “not a chartered surveyor”. However, the judge stated that members had “sufficient to enable them to be able to make an informed judgement”.
Mr Perry also claimed he was entitled to see documents relating to the permission, stating he was “treated unfairly”. However, Newmark Properties denied he was treated unfairly, and that he had no right to see the documents.
The judge sided with the defendants here, stating: “Whilst the claimant may not be content with the content of the officer reports on each planning application he has no complaint about not having received them.”
Mr Perry also argued that the defendant failed to “apply the appropriate statutory tests” in each application in its approach to heritage assets, it was heard that English Heritage advised the Council.
The judge dismissed the grounds, stating that the process that followed the advice was “fair, reasoned and entirely rational”.
Mr Perry claimed that the permission decision was irrational and or unreasonable, however, as the judge had dismissed all other grounds, he stated that there can be no basis for this ground succeeding.
The judge concluded: “I have taken into account all other shades of argument raised by the claimant in reaching the decision that I have. On a full and fair reading of the reports it is perfectly clear how the councillors came to the conclusions that they did. This ground fails also on both bases.
“Accordingly, I dismiss both claims for judicial review. I invite submissions as to the final order and costs.”
Leave a comment