Those who read our regular updates will know of course that it is Waldringfield PC who have lodged the JR.
Please note – the title should of course read “Waldringfield P.C. lodge Judicial Review” and not “NANT and Waldringfield P.C. lodge Judicial Review”.
The SCDC Core Strategy pre-submission consultation ended on March 7th. NANT sent in its representation and this is now available here NANT EiP Representation SCDC LDF CS . We have asked to be present and to speak at the Examination in Public (EiP) – when an independent inspector will look at all the arguments before him, including those of SCDC and will decide if the Council has complied with the legal requirements and if the Core strategy is “sound”. The hearings are likely to be around August and the final report from the inspector is likely to be towards the end of the year.
That in itself is an appropriate course of action and in normal circumstances would be sufficient – however, there is the underlying matter of the BT application. The 2 matters have always been intrinsically linked.
Ridley & co have not been able/willing to give any assurance that the BT application for the 2000 houses at Adastral Park will not be determined before the inspector’s report. In fact on previous occasions when SCDC has “adopted the core strategy as interim planning policy” Ridley has been busily booking the venue for the BT application to go before the planning committee. At the council meeting of December 15th 2011 SCDC had to refrain from using the term “adopt the core strategy as interim planning policy” as this was illegal, however, the emerging core strategy is a material consideration (in other words it has to be taken into account) when determining a planning application.
We have spoken before of the possibility of seeking a judicial review, (JR). On December 15th SCDC made the decision to not to redress the failings that have been identified by the lawyers, by some councillors, parish councils and the public and to press ahead with the core strategy. There is a limited time in which to seek JR – 3 months from the date of the decision. In order to stay within the time limit and not be time barred from challenging the draft core strategy should it be necessary to do so, a JR was lodged with the High Court on March 14th. This action will also protect the same grounds of challenge in the event that SCDC decides to approve the BT application and these claims need to be raised as grounds of challenge to the granting of permission to BT. However, the lawyer has applied to have the JR proceedings “stayed” or not progressed further, until or unless the BT application comes forward for determination before the EiP is concluded. This is known as a “protective” JR application.
So, watch this space……………………….