Application for leave to apply for judicial review of planning decision permitting extension of quarry in closed-off section of nature conservation area – Applicants not resident in vicinity and personally affected only in so far as they cherished unspoilt character of area and made objections before decision – Whether applicants possessing necessary locus standi for initiating judicial review – Leave refused
The second respondent, Pioneer Aggregates (UK) Ltd, (Pioneer), operated a quarry in an enclosed area in Top Park Field, part of a large public park, Ashton Court, lying on the outskirts of Bristol, and listed as Grade II on the English Heritage register of parks and gardens of special historic interest. Top Park Field, designated as a site of nature conservation in the Avon County structure plan, included a wildflower meadow containing many uncommon species. On July 31 1996 Pioneer obtained planning permission for an extension of the quarry within the enclosed area, subject to certain conditions and coupled with a section 106 agreement, which envisaged the eventual restoration of the entire area.
Seeking leave to apply for judicial review the first named applicant was a Bristol resident with a degree in environmental biology who frequently visited the wildflower meadow to further her interest in habitats and eco-systems. The second named applicant also lived in Bristol and frequented Top Park Field to play various musical instruments and indulge his hobby of kiting. Both applicants were members of Friends of the Earth, and as such had both taken an active part in making objections before the decision. Opposing the application for leave the respondents contended above all that neither applicant had ‘sufficient interest’ in the matter within the meaning of RSC Ord 53 r 3 and section 31(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981.
Held Leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
The exercise of the right to object before the decision did not per se invest that person with a sufficient interest for the purpose of seeking judicial review. The applicants lived over four miles from the site in question, to which the public had no access, and were well provided with local facilities for recreation and ecological study. Thus they had failed to establish an interest above that possessed by the public in general in seeing public duties properly performed: see R v Canterbury Council, ex parte Springimage Ltd (1993) 3 PLR 58, applying R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617 and R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Rose Theatre Trust Co [1990] 1 PLR 39.
Andrew Gilbart QC and John Barrett (instructed by Tyndallwoods, of Edgbaston) appeared for the applicants; Giles Kavanagh (instructed by the solicitor to North Somerset Council) appeared for the first respondents; Keith Lindblom QC and Joanna Clayton (instructed by Dennis Faulkner & Alsop, of Northampton) appeared for the second respondent.
