A North Yorkshire councillor is appealing against the High Court’s dismissal of his claim that he was unfairly barred from a key council meeting to discuss gravel extraction from a site near his home.
Paul Richardson, councillor for Masham and Fountains, had sought judicial review of North Yorkshire County Council’s decision to grant an extension for sand and gravel extraction at the Ripon City Quarry, near the River Ure. His challenge was supported by local parish councillor, Wendy Orme, who claimed that the decision to grant planning consent to Brown & Potter Ltd was flawed.
The two councillors claimed that the development could affect vulnerable wildlife on the site by the River Ure, including otters, water voles, and bats, and alleged that the council had not sufficiently considered the potential environmental effect of the scheme.
Richardson argued that his exclusion from the meeting had been wrong and that the council had failed to make known the reasons for their decision in accordance with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.
In the High Court, Richards J held that there had been a failure to comply with the requirements of the regulations, and ordered that a statement of the council’s reasons for their decision should be made available to the public.
However, as far as Richardson’s exclusion from the meeting was concerned, the judge said that it was plain that he had had a personal interest in the matter and, in the circumstances, he had been required to withdraw from the meeting in his capacity as a councillor. However, Richardson was not then precluded from attending the meeting in his personal capacity.
In the Court of Appeal, Robert McCracken QC argued that the council’s failure to supply a statement of their reasons could not be overcome by a subsequent order that they be made public.
He said that the subsequent substitute reasons given by the council had failed to show that there had been a “sequential and transparent consideration of the environmental implications of the project”, and claimed that the reasons had not been “the result of discussion by all the committee members”. He said “only councillors in favour of the development were interviewed”.
McCracken also argued that the judge had erred in his construction of, and approach to, the code of conduct in relation to Richardson’s representative role.
He claimed that the judge had been wrong to hold that any decision reached by the council would have been unlawful if Richardson had been allowed to take part in it and to stay and address the meeting in a representative capacity.
The hearing continues.
R (on the application of Richardson and another) v North Yorkshire County Council and others Court of Appeal (Simon Brown, Keene and Scott Baker LJJ) 9 December 2003.
Robert McCracken QC and Gregory Jones (instructed by Richard Buxton, of Cambridge) appeared for the appellants; Timothy Straker QC and Paul Greatorex (instructed by the solicitor to North Yorkshire County Council) appeared for the first respondents; James Maurici (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the second respondent, the First Secretary of State; Thomas Hill (instructed by Mills & Reeve, of Cambridge) appeared for the interested party, Brown & Potter Ltd.
References: EGi Legal News 10/12/03
