The future of a massive shopping centre proposed for Norwich is at stake in Londons High Court today.
Friends Provident (FP), which owns Castle Mall in the city centre, is asking a judge to rule that the Government must give the final go-ahead for Lend Lease’s proposed retail scheme because the decision is too important for Norwich council to make alone.
The Environment Secretary has twice declined invitations to “call in” the planning application for the development, to be built on the city’s former Nestle factory site at Chapelfield. Norwich council has now resolved to give planning permission, although it will not do so until these court proceedings are over.
However, FP is now asking the court to overturn the Environment Secretarys decision not to call in the planning application. It claims that the scheme will have an adverse effect on central Norwich, and, in particular, Castle Mall, and therefore argues that the decision is too important for the council to decide.
Lend Lease applied for planning consent for the scheme in April 2000, and FP launched its objection soon after. The council referred the issue to the Secretary of State, but he twice declined to call in the scheme in January or June of this year. The court today heard that the council resolved to grant permission on 5 July this year, but this has yet to be granted to Lend Lease.
FP claims that the proposed development is ten times bigger than the threshold figure of 5,000 sq m (53,821 sq ft) of retail floorspace that, once reached, requires shopping developments to be referred to the Environment Secretary for a decision.
FP’s lawyer, Christopher Katkowski, argued that a planning decision which could potentially have a detrimental impact on the enjoyment or economic value of a property involves a determination of civil rights requiring a fair and impartial hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
He claimed that having the decision taken by the council did not satisfy the requirements of Article 6 because its decision making process lacks the appropriate safeguards of the Environment Secretarys procedure, such as a planning inspectors inquiry.
He argued that the Environment Secretary had therefore breached Article 6 by declining to call the matter in, and therefore inevitably leaving the decision to be taken by a tribunal, which does not satisfy Article 6.
The Environment Secretary, however, claims that the determination by the council is subject to subsequent review by the High Court through judicial review proceedings, which FP is currently taking against the Environment Secretary himself. He argues that Article 6 is therefore satisfied.
During the hearing, which is expected to last two days, the court will also hear opposition to FPs legal moves from both Norwich council and Lend Lease.
EGi News 23/07/01
