Back
Legal

Racing industry awaits Newmarket court decision

Objectors opposed to plans for 1,200 new homes in Newmarket, which they claim could threaten the town’s status as the capital of the racing industry, must wait to hear the outcome of their High Court challenge.


Collins J reserved his decision after lawyers for Forest Heath District Council argued that the council’s core strategy should not be quashed. Adopted in May 2010, this allocates land owned by Lord Derby at Hatchfield Farm, between the A14 and Fordham Road, to meet the town’s future housing needs.


Mark Lowe QC argued that the challenge brought by campaign group Save Historic Newmarket, the Jockey Club Estate, Tattersalls and a number of trainers was an attempt to re-open the planning merits of the urban extension of north-east Newmarket.


He said that the claimants had presented a “partial and limited picture” of what was a detailed process of assessment, consultation and public participation that led to adoption of the core strategy.


He argued that the claimants had participated in the process and lost, and that their challenge lacked in merit.


Lord Derby also claims that the proposal is the best way to meet targets for new homes in the area and insists that he does not want to threaten Newmarket‘s racing industry.


He is appealing the council’s June 2010 decision to refuse planning permission to build 1,200 homes on his land.


The claimants say that the 1,200 extra homes would lead to an unacceptable increase in traffic congestion that will create hazardous conditions for horses and result in horse-racing businesses leaving the town.


Their counsel, David Elvin QC, said that the horse-racing industry plays an “integral role in the special character of Newmarket, which is of national and international importance”.


He argued that the core strategy, which will play a key role in the determination of subsequent planning applications in respect of Hatchfield Farm, was “unlawful” and based on a public consultation that was “procedurally flawed”.


The deficiencies in the consultation process, he claimed, had caused “substantial prejudice to the public”.

Up next…