Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

The Queen (on the application of Adlard & others) (Appellant) – and – Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport & Regions (Respondent), (1) Fulham Stadium Limited (2) London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (Interested Parties)

Pays/Territoire
Royaume-Uni
Type de cour
Autres
Date
Mai 17, 2002
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Court of Appeal
Siège de la cour
London
Juge
Brown
Mummer
Dyson
Numéro de référence
2002 EWCA Civ 671
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Questions juridiques
Mot clé
Participation du public Procédures judiciaires/procédures administratives
Résumé
This case dealt with questions relating to the requirement of public hearings in the course of planning decisions. Fulham Football Club’s Craven Cottage ground lied on the north bank of the Thames. In 2000 its owners sought planning permissions for the purpose of re-developing its football stadium into a 30,000 capacity all-seater stadium. The appellants, most of who lived nearby, were concerned about the impact of the development in terms of noise, litter, air quality and the impact on the ecology of the River Thames. An environmental impact assessment was produced. In February 2001 the planning committee met. Some 600 people attended. Oral representations were not permitted. The Committee resolved to grant the application. The appellants sought to persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport & Regions to call in the application to a Public Enquiry. The Secretary of State refused. The issue the Court had to analyze was, among others: Was the appellants’ entitlement to "a fair and public hearing" satisfied by the English planning system which, in the case of objectors, allowed the local planning authority to grant planning permission without having afforded them any opportunity of an oral hearing? The Court examined national and European jurisdiction related to the question and concluded that where the administrative decisions taken at first instance were turning on questions of judgment and discretion rather than on findings of fact, the statutory scheme did not have to provide for an oral hearing at that initial stage. If the court were satisfied that exceptionally, on the facts of a particular case, the local planning authority had acted unfairly or unreasonably in denying an objector any sufficient oral hearing, the court would quash the decision and require such a hearing to be given. The decision whether or not the permit this development, however, involved questions of discretion and planning judgment rather than the resolution of primary fact. The appeal was dismissed.
Texte intégral
Queen_v_Environment.htm