Undertaker Dignity Funerals today asked a High Court judge to quash a planning permission granted to a firm of Kings Lynn undertakers to build a new crematorium.Dignity, one of the biggest providers of funeral services in the UK, said that Breckland District Council failed to consider their proposals to build a crematorium on a nearby site when it granted planning permission to family firm Thornally Funeral Services.At a hearing today Dignity’s barrister, James Strachan QC, said that the council had a “duty” to consider alternative proposals. Not only that, but the Dignity had come up with a “specific alternative”.“There is a difference between the need to consider a ‘possible alternative’ and a ‘specific alternative’,” he said.He said that the council made mistakes because “they weren’t planning for a crematorium”, so when they realised they needed one they “misapplied their policies to make them fit.”However in written arguments lawyers for the council said that Dignity’s claim should be dismissed because it is simply trying to challenge a decision it dislikes.“The council’s grant of permission involved a straightforward weighing of local planning policies, national guidance and other material considerations by its planning committee, advised by expert officers,” Chritopher Lockhart-Mummery QC and Zack Simons said in their skeleton argument.They said that the council was under no obligation to consider Dignity’s alternative. In addition, Dignity hasn’t made any planning applications for their proposed project, and have given the council “insufficient information to allow even an informal view of its planning merits to be reached”.Dignity Funerals v Breckland District Council and Thornalley Funeral Services (interested party)
Undertaker Dignity Funerals today asked a High Court judge to quash a planning permission granted to a firm of Kings Lynn undertakers to build a new crematorium.
Dignity, one of the biggest providers of funeral services in the UK, said that Breckland District Council failed to consider their proposals to build a crematorium on a nearby site when it granted planning permission to family firm Thornally Funeral Services.
At a hearing today Dignity’s barrister, James Strachan QC, said that the council had a “duty” to consider alternative proposals. Not only that, but the Dignity had come up with a “specific alternative”.
“There is a difference between the need to consider a ‘possible alternative’ and a ‘specific alternative’,” he said.
He said that the council made mistakes because “they weren’t planning for a crematorium”, so when they realised they needed one they “misapplied their policies to make them fit.”
However in written arguments lawyers for the council said that Dignity’s claim should be dismissed because it is simply trying to challenge a decision it dislikes.
“The council’s grant of permission involved a straightforward weighing of local planning policies, national guidance and other material considerations by its planning committee, advised by expert officers,” Chritopher Lockhart-Mummery QC and Zack Simons said in their skeleton argument.
They said that the council was under no obligation to consider Dignity’s alternative. In addition, Dignity hasn’t made any planning applications for their proposed project, and have given the council “insufficient information to allow even an informal view of its planning merits to be reached”.
Dignity Funerals v Breckland District Council and Thornalley Funeral Services (interested party)
