The court of appeal today ruled in a dispute between Tendring District Council and the owner of Mistley Port over possible redevelopment of the quayside.
Lewison LJ dismissed an appeal by port owner TW Logistics Ltd, which claimed that the council adopted the Manningtree and Mistley Conservation Area Management Plan (CAMP) in breach of its own Local Plan, in order to support its own plans for a mixed-use redevelopment.
The judge upheld a high court ruling last May, in which 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 claimed 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.
However, Lewison J said that, though the “bedrock” of TW Logistics’ case was that the Local Plan provided that the quayside area was first and foremost for port related uses, he agreed with the high court judge’s rejection of that contention.
He said: “The written explanation of policy QL6, forming part of the Local Plan, specifically says that mixed use development will be encouraged over the whole of the Mistley Urban Regeneration Area.
“The fact that the Local Plan does not specifically promote the reorganisation of the port or the development of Thorn Quay warehouse for non-port related purposes does not entail the converse proposition that either of them is prohibited. The Local Plan is neutral on the issue of port reorganisation; and specifically envisages that Thorn Quay warehouse can be redeveloped, provided that policy LMM1 is complied with.”
Ian Dove QC, for TW Logistics, told the court earlier this month that it is the council’s longstanding aspiration to promote relocation of the operational port and mixed-use redevelopment of the existing port area, but that this “masterplan” for redevelopment of the port had been rejected through the statutory development plan processes that led to the Local Plan.
He claimed that the resulting Local Plan protected the existing employment uses and promotes expansion of the port, and that, in adopting the CAMP, the council acted on the misconceived premise that the Local Plan promoted a mixed redevelopment of the quayside.
However, Lewison J said that he agreed with Silber J’s conclusions and his detailed reasoning.
Silber J said that TW Logistics and the council had “diametrically opposed views as to the future of the quayside”, but ruled that he was unable to conclude that the CAMP was “in any way inconsistent” with the Local Plan policy.
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, adding : “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.”
“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.”
TW Logistics Ltd v Tendring District Council Administrative Court of Appeal (Mummery, Aikens and Lewison LJJ) 24 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)
