An alleged computer glitch on a planning authority’s website could halt the development of more than 60 London council flats, according to arguments in a court case this week.
The case, which was heard at the High Court in London, is being brought against Tower Hamlets Council by local resident, Melanie Rainbird.
Tower Hamlets plans to build an eight-storey and a six-storey accommodation block on Arnold Road, E3, for which the council granted itself planning permission in March 2017.
Rainbird and a group of residents, while not opposed to the development in principle, are concerned that the height of the buildings will reduce the light to their properties, according to arguments presented by their lawyer Richard Buxton.
‘Missing’ report
“Central to the case is a Daylight and Sunlight (D&S) report prepared by consultants Waldrams for the council as a developer,” Buxton said.
He claims that, possibly because of a computer glitch, that report wasn’t available on the council’s website, which means that an important aspect of the project wasn’t made available for public comment.
This, he said, has led to “real concerns… that residents were not able to participate fairly in the decision making process”, leading to a potentially flawed granting of planning permission.
In response, lawyers for Tower Hamlets argue that the report was uploaded onto the council’s website prior to the consultation but, even if it wasn’t, that wouldn’t have led to any unfairness and there was “no material or substantial prejudice” to the decision making process.
Conflicting views
However, proving the existence – or non-existence– of a document on a website at a certain time isn’t necessarily simple.
Matthew Reed QC, for Tower Hamlets, argued that “the evidence is clear” that the report “was available during the consultation period”.
It was uploaded onto the council’s website on 22 September 2016 and made available, along with all the other documents associated with the application, on 3 October.
The company that runs the document management system confirmed that, short of somebody deliberately going into the system and removing the file, and putting it back later, “there is nothing that would make one specific document not appear in the list of documents displayed”.
The index shows that the document was uploaded, and it wasn’t necessary to reload it, Reed said.
However, Buxton, for the claimant, challenged this.
He said that during the consultation period, the claimant and at least 11 other people who “had every interest in seeing the D&S report” were unable to find it, suggesting that it was not there.
He argues that because, for good reason, the council has automatically deleted a record showing the number of time the document was downloaded, “there is no positive evidence that the D&S report (or any other documents) were actually downloaded”.
Complex systems
The court also heard evidence from an expert witness who said that “despite the best will in the world, ‘things go wrong’ with these very complex systems”.
Reed, for Tower Hamlets, argues that at least two objectors to the plan did see the report.
However, in response, Buxton argues that “it is at least possible that they did not see the D&S report online at all or that only after it had appeared (belatedly) online”.
“Even though it should have been available, it is perfectly possible for the system to have malfunctioned and then corrected itself without human intervention at some point.”
Judgment is due to he handed down at a later date.
Melanie Rainbird v The London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Planning Court. Hearing dates 7-8 March 2018
