CO/4302/2016 
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 263 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Tuesday, 17 January 2017
 
B e f o r e: 

MR JUSTICE COLLINS 

Between:
 
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF BENT 
Claimant
v

CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL 
Defendant
WICKEN LIME AND STONE COMPANY LIMITED 
	t/a FRANCIS FLOWER (EASTERN)
Interested Party 
 
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
Trading as DTI 
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY 
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
 
Mr A Henderson (instructed by Richard Buxton Environmental & Public Law) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
The Defendant did not appear and was not represented
Mr R Moules (instructed by TLT Ltd) appeared on behalf of the Interested Party 
 
J U D G M E N T
(As Approved) 
 
Crown copyright©

	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  
1.	As you gather from what I have been saying, I think you do have a point on your first ground, namely that simply to say because it is only up to two decibels therefore the bund is not something that is needed, is arguably not to follow what the guidance and legislation requires.  
2.	So far as delay is concerned, there is an argument, obviously, whether the Council was able without going through the statutory steps, if I may call them that, to make the amendments and it is Mr Moules' submission that they were not and therefore time ran from 20 June when the original decision was issued and sent to the claimant. It seems to me that it is at least arguable that time actually in the circumstances should run from 11 July.  But even if that is wrong, it seems to me that it is appropriate for me in the circumstances to exercise discretion to allow the claim to proceed despite the delay.  But that, of course, does not disable the interested party from taking the point that it prejudices them in accordance with section 31(6) of the Superior Courts Act 1981.  So that is a point that can always be made, that there is prejudice.  
3.	So far as the ground relating to the enforceability of the condition is concerned, I do not think it will be appropriate for that to be litigated because from discussions we had earlier, which of course have been recorded, and the indication given by the interested party. It seems to me that sensible discussions should achieve the necessary detail to avoid arguments in the future as to how any testing or any monitoring should be carried out.  So that seems to me, frankly, to be the clearly sensible way of dealing with that issue.  But I am not precluding it from being argued if it is impossible to reach any sensible conclusion on it, although I would have thought that it is in no‑one's interests that that be left over.  
4.	So far as prejudice is concerned, and clearly it is important for the interested party that they are able to keep to the timetable, the only issue really is whether a bund should be erected.  It would, of course, I am told, be necessary in the circumstances to have an amended EIA statement to cover this and to enable necessary consultation or input to be given.  It would surprise me, I am bound to say, since there is an existing bund and it is simply a question of moving it, however great a distance is involved, that there would be any conceivable reason why there should be an objection to the construction of such a bund when it is necessary because the works are commencing or the works for which permission has been granted have commenced.  But the sensible thing, surely, would be again for immediate steps to be taken, without prejudice to the ultimate conclusion in the court, to ensure that if the judge takes the view that it was clearly wrong not to have permitted the bund and the matter should be reconsidered, that can be done exceedingly expeditiously.  But I am persuaded that the point is arguable.  That does not mean, of course, that it will succeed.  I am only concerned at this stage with arguability.  
5.	I am bound to say too that the delay does not seem likely to have had any appreciable effect upon the interested party's timetabling because even if it had been lodged three weeks earlier, the same problems would have arisen for them.  
6.	I hope what I have said will be helpful for the future to try to ensure the minimum possible delays in dealing with this. 
7.	So far as the claim is concerned, it should be dealt with, and everyone will want it to be dealt with, as soon as possible, I imagine.  What additional material will be needed?  Very little I would have thought.
8.	MR HENDERSON:  I think as far as the claimant is concerned, we have put in everything that needs to be for the claim.
9.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  That is what I would have thought.
10.	MR HENDERSON:  So, really, it would be in the hands of the interested party and the defendant, who is are not represented today.
11.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  It should not take very long for that.  All I am getting at that it seems to me that this is a claim that should be heard before the end of this term.
12.	MR MOULES:  Indeed.  It is not even a case that would necessarily warrant detailed grounds of defence.
13.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  No, I agree.
14.	MR MOULES:  So one could expedite the timetable.
15.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  I am very happy to expedite the timetable.
16.	MR MOULES:  I am grateful.
17.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  You do not need anything extra at the moment? 
18.	MR HENDERSON:  Not that I am aware of.
19.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  Obviously the Council may want to put in something extra but that is up to them, but you will not need more than how long?  Normally it is 35 days, is it not? 
20.	MR MOULES:  My Lord, I do not envisage us putting in either detailed grounds or any evidence.
21.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  I would not have thought it was necessary.  You have really got everything.  It is only really the Council.  But I would have thought, really, that they have got as much as ‑‑ I would have thought that we can be exceptional and give them 14 days.
22.	MR MOULES:  I would agree that is realistic.
23.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  Which I would hope would mean that this case would be ready to be heard by the end of this month, potentially.  I am not saying it will be fixed for the end of this month but with a view to it being heard.  Time estimate a day possibly?
24.	MR MOULES:  It is certainly no more than a day, yes.
25.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  No more than a day, possibly less but let us say half a day, a day, what do you think? 
26.	MR HENDERSON:  I think it might be prudent to list for a day because there are three parties but hopefully it will run short.
27.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  With a view to it being heard by the end of February and it should be a High Court Judge because it may be a question of ‑‑ I do not know, do you think it needs a High Court Judge?  I am not sure that it does.
28.	MR MOULES:  It would be suitable for a Deputy with considerable planning experience.
29.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  Yes, a High Court Judge or a Deputy with planning experience, it must be one with planning experience.  If you can perhaps between you put in the relevant draft that covers those points. 
30.	MR HENDERSON:  We will liaise on the order.  Can I just clarify one point, my Lord?  Is permission granted on all three grounds with the caveat on ground 3, or just on grounds 1 and 2? 
31.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  Sorry, what caveat?
32.	MR HENDERSON:  Is permission granted on grounds 1 and 2 with a caveat ‑‑ 
33.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  Two I do not think really adds anything, does it? 
34.	MR HENDERSON:  So just grounds 1 and 3, with the caveat that ‑‑ 
35.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  Only if it transpires that there is no possibility of reaching sensible arrangements.  I cannot see that that is likely to happen.  But that is a matter that you can raise if necessary and it may be necessary to raise it before the judge for something to be included in the order, possibly, but that is all.  But, frankly, I do not think a great deal of that ground anyway.  It is pretty marginal and it is probably unnecessary.  That information can be conveyed.  Thank you both.
36.	MR HENDERSON:  Thank you.  
37.	MR JUSTICE COLLINS:  It could lead, I suppose, to a decision as to whether this is a case where there was power to amend in the way that they did.  Because you are still able, if there was not, to raise the prejudice point.  That is something that you might like to put in in the next 14 days to see whether you are taking that point.
38.	MR HENDERSON:  Certainly, yes.
39.	MR MOULES:  I am grateful, thank you.