The court of appeal is to rule on a dispute between Tendring district council and the owner of Mistley Port over possible redevelopment of the quayside.
Port owner TW Logistics Ltd claims that the council adopted the Manningtree and Mistley Conservation Area Management Plan in breach of its own local plan, in order to support its own plans for a mixed-use redevelopment.
However, last May, Silber J rejected the claim and held that the council had done nothing wrong in adopting the CAMP, which he said was aimed at conservation and enhancement of the village.
Appealing that decision, TW Logistics claims that the judge erred when he found that the CAMP was not in breach of the Tendring Local Plan 2007 and, as a result, unlawful.
Ian Dove QC, for TW Logistics, said that it is the council’s longstanding aspiration to promote relocation of the operational port and mixed-use redevelopment of the existing port area.
However, he said that the council’s masterplan for redevelopment of the port was rejected through the statutory development plan processes that led to the local plan. The resulting local plan, he argued, protects the existing employment uses and promotes expansion of the port.
He claimed that the CAMP approaches industrial port buildings as if they are harmful to the character and appearance of the area and aims to replace them. However, he argued that the Local Plan in fact recognises that the quayside should remain first and foremost an operational port, which means there will necessarily be large warehouse buildings on it.
He claimed that the council acted on the misconceived premise that the Local Plan promotes a mixed redevelopment of the quayside.
Lawyers for the council argued that the judge was entitled to reject the challenge.
The court reserved its judgment.
In the ruling under challenge, Silber J said that TW Logistics and the council had “diametrically opposed views as to the future of the quayside”.
However, he ruled that he was unable to conclude that the CAMP was “in any way inconsistent” with the local plan policy.
He said : “The stark fact which answers all complaints is that the CAMP does not make policy and it does not promote any type of development or prevent the council having regard to the potential for port uses of existing buildings before allowing any change of use.”
He said that CAMP addressed conservation, protection and enhancement issues, and was not a part of a development plan and did not set out policy for change of use.
“There is no reason why the council cannot also take into account the matters set out in the CAMP and there is nothing in the local plan or in any other document which precludes them from doing so,” he said.
TW Logistics Ltd v Tendring District Council Administrative Court of Appeal 15 January 2013
Ian Dove QC and David Forsdick (instructed by SJ berwin) for the claimant
David Altaras (instructed by Holmes and Hills LLP) for the defendant
Rhodri Price Lewis QC (instructed by Howes Percival) for the interested party (Anglia Maltings (Holdings) Ltd)
