England and Wales High Court of Justice

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Butterfield & Ors v Secretary of State for Defence, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 08, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2247 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL WORDWAVE
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2247 Admin PA/3/2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Tuesday, 8th October 2002

B E F O R E:

MR JUSTICE PARK

- - - - - - -

DAVID BUTTERFIELD AND MARY CREASEY
(on behalf of JAMES WILLIAM BUTTERFIELD (deceased))
Appellant

-v-


SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE
Respondent
- - - - - - -
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Palantype Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - -

MR P RUSSELL (instructed by Messrs Lane & Partners, London WC1A 2LS) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR S KOVATS (instructed by Treasury Solicitor, London SW1H 9JS) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
- - - - - - -

J U D G M E N T
(As approved by the Court)

- - - - - - -
Crown copyright©

1. MR JUSTICE PARK:
Overview This is an appeal against a decision of a Pensions Appeal Tribunal which on 19th September 2000 dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State that Mr JW Butterfield did not qualify to receive a disability award or pension under the Naval Military and Air Forces Etc (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983. Mr Butterfield died in August 2000, so the appeal to the Tribunal and the further appeal to me have been prosecuted by his son and daughter on behalf of his estate. In this judgmen...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
LPC Group Plc, R (on the application of) v Leicester City Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 18, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2485 (Admin)

CO/3128/2002
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2485 Admin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
The Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2A 2LL

18 October 2002
Before:

SIR CHRISTOPHER BELLAMY QC
(sitting as a deputy High Court Judge)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE QUEEN
on the application of
LPC GROUP PLC
Claimant

v

LEICESTER CITY COUNCIL
Defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nigel Godsmark QC, instructed by Nelsons, Pennine House, 8 Stanford Street, Nottingham NF1 7BR, appeared on behalf of the claimant

Richard Humphreys, instructed by the Assistant Head of Legal Services, Leicester City Council, New Walk Centre, Leicester LE1 6ZG, appeared on behalf of the defendant
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©


22
Introduction
1. The claimant, LPC Group PLC, challenges Part 207 of the New Leicester Traffic Regulation (Amendment 19) (Hamilton Industrial Estate Area Order) 2002 ("the contested order") in so far as that order prohibits vehicles waiting at any time on Hill Top Road, Leicester. The defendant, Leicester City Council, is the relevant traffic authority for the Hamilton Industrial Estate under section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 ("the 1984 Act").
2. The contested order was made pursuant to sections 1 and 2 of the 1984 Act on 19 June 2002 and came into effect on 1 July 2002. Section 122 of the 1984 Act sets out certain matters that the traffic authority must take into account when exercising its functions under that Act. The procedure for making orders of the kind here in question is set out in The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, SI 1996 no. 2489 ("the 1996 Regulations"). Schedule 9, Part VI to the 1984 Act provides a specific statutory procedure for challenging certain orders made under that Act, including orders made under section 1: see paragraph 34 of that schedule. That procedure is akin to an application for judicial review: see R v Worcestershire County Council ex parte Boyden [1991] C.O.D. 31.
3. The claim in this case was made on 5 July 2002. On 10 July 2002 Mr Justice Stanley Burnton ordered, by consent, that the provisions of the contested order be suspended until the disposal of the claim.
The factual background 4. The geography of the case is best understood by reference to the map which forms Annex 1 to this judgment. Hill Top road is on the eastern side of the Hamilton Industrial Estate. If one travels north up Waterside Road, one turns right into Hill Top Road which, shortly afterwards, goes round to the left and then proceeds to run for about one-third of a mile in a generally north-easterly direction up to the applicant's premises. The applicant's premises are situated at
[/align]...

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Kennedy v CPS, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 06, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2297 (Admin)

Case No: CO/2720/2002
Neutral Citation No. [2002] EWHC 2297 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Wednesday 6th November 2002
Before :

LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY
&
MR JUSTICE PITCHERS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Anthony Jennings QC (instructed by Freeman & Co., Manchester) for the appellant
Steven Everett (instructed by CPS)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©

Lord Justice Kennedy :

1. This is an appeal by way of case stated from the decision of justices sitting at Northwich who on 1st February 2002, after a contested hearing, found that the appellant on 9th September 2001 at Wilmslow, having been required to provide two specimens of breath for analysis in the course of an investigation into whether he had committed an offence under section 3A or section 5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, failed without reasonable excuse to provide the specimen.
Facts. 2. At 2.40 am on 9th September 2001 PC Worthington was in a police vehicle when he saw a vehicle driven by the appellant. He followed it, caused it to stop and spoke to the appellant. The appellant was then arrested and taken to Wilmslow police station, arriving there at 3 am. The custody sergeant was dealing with another detainee so the appellant was placed...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Quintavalle, R (on the application of) v Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, December 20, 2002, [2003] 2 All ER 105,(2003) 70 BMLR 236,[2003] 1 FCR 664,[2002] EWHC 3000 (Admin)

Case No: CO/1162/02
Neutral Citation No.[2002] EWHC 3000 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Friday 20 December 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE QUEEN on the application of


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Richard Gordon QC and Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Coningsbys) for the Claimant
Miss Dinah Rose (instructed by Morgan Cole) for the Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JudgmentMr Justice Maurice Kay : 1. This case is concerned with human leukocyte antigen typing, which is otherwise known as tissue typing. It is a technique which enables an embryologist to ascertain whether an embryo will produce a child whose tissue will match that of an existing person. Such a match would enable that child to act as a donor for an older sibling with a serious genetic disorder by the donation of stem cell material from the umbilical cord. The issue is whether the...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Virjon B v Special Adjudicator, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 17, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1469 (Admin)

Case No.: CO/3829/2001
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1469 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2

Monday, 17th June 2002
B e f o r e:

MR JUSTICE FORBES

- - - - - - -

VIRJON B
(claimant)


-v-


SPECIAL ADJUDICATOR
(defendant)

- - - - - -
Computer-Aided Transcript of the stenograph notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited,
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Telephone No: 020 7404 1400 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - -

Miss R Chapman appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr S Wilken appeared on behalf of the Defendant

- - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
Monday, 17th June 2002 1. MR JUSTICE FORBES: This is an application for judicial review of the decision of an Adjudicator dated 11th July 2001, whereby the claimant's appeal against the refusal by the Secretary of State to grant him refugee status was dismissed and the Secretary of State's certificate under paragraph 5(4)(b) of Schedul...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
University of Leeds v Leeds City Council, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, April 12, 2002, [2002] EWHC 738 (Admin)

Case No: CO/3904/2001
Neutral Citation No.: [2002] EWHC 738 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Wednesday 24 April 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RICHARDS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC and Mr John Litton (instructed by Wilbraham & Co) for the Claimant
Mr Timothy Corner and Mr Jonathan Moffett (instructed by Solicitor to Leeds City Council) for the Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©

Mr Justice Richards:
1. By this claim, made pursuant to s.287 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the University of Leeds challenges Policy N11 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan ("the UDP") in so far as the policy notation affects part of a site at Bodington Hall adjoining the outer ring road in the Weetwood area of Leeds.
2. Policy N11 provides:
"On the following tracts of land, only open uses will be permitted. Building will only be allowed if it can be shown that it is necessary for the operation of farming or recreational uses and if it would not adversely affect the open character of the area:
...
4. Outer ring road, Weetwood ...." 3. The relevant part of the site at Bodington Hall falls within item 4 of the policy. It was included within the ...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Bedford & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Islington, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, July 31, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2044 (Admin)

SMITH BERNAL
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2044 Admin
CO/0529/2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London

Date: Wednesday 31 July 2002
B e f o r e:

MR JUSTICE OUSELEY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE QUEEN

on the application of

(1) EDWARD BEDFORD
(2) ELIZABETH CLARE
Claimants
- v -

LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON
Defendant
and

ARSENAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
Interested Party
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Computer Aided Transcription by
Smith Bernal, 190 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR ROBERT McCRACKEN, MR GREGORY JONES and MR JEREMY PIKE
(instructed by Messrs Earthrights Solicitors, Es*** CM22 6PJ)
appeared on behalf of THE CLAIMANTS

MR ROBIN PURCHAS QC and MISS KAREN McHUGH
(instructed by London Borough of Islington Legal Services
Department) appeared on behalf of THE DEFENDANT

MR DAVID ELVIN QC and MR DANIEL KOLINSKY (instructed by Messrs Gouldens, London EC4M 7NG) appeared on behalf of the INTERESTED PARTY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY:
Introduction
1. In 1913 Arsenal Football Club (``Arsenal FC'') moved from Woolwich to Highbury Stadium in the London Borough of Islington. The advent of all-seater stadia for Premiership clubs caused a dramatic fall in its ground capacity, the seat revenue from which is a vital part of its national and international success. It concluded that the existing stadium site could not be redeveloped for a stadium of appropriate size, nor could the existing stadium be expanded to give it a capacity comparable to that of the club's major national and international rivals. Accordingly it needed to relocate. Arsenal FC wished to remain close to what for nearly 90 years has been its home location and is the largest concentration of its supporters, albeit but a small percentage of the total.
2. After consideration of a number of alternatives, it concluded that a site at Ashburton Grove, Highbury, near to its current ground, afforded it the best opportunity. The site is largely, but not wholly, owned by the London Borough of Islington.
3. The Club's proposals emerged publicly and formally in 1999. The London Borough of Islington produced planning briefs for public consultation and a scoping opinion for the Environmental Statement which this development would need. The development would encompass not just the new stadium at Ashburton Grove, but redevelopment at nearby Lough Road to accommodate a waste recycling centre, to be displaced from Ashburton Grove and also the redevelopment of the existing Highbury stadium site. So three sites close to one another near Highbury were involved. The range of financially enabling or supportive development involved included housing, business and community uses. The combined proposals were to provoke controversy and division amongst residents near the three sites, and indeed amongst supporters of the club.
4. The Environmental Statement produced by the Club is a lengthy document which was subject to extensive public consultation. Eventually Islington's officers recommended that, although the proposals did not comply in a number of respects with UDP policy, planning permission should be granted.
5. Following a Council meeting on 10 December 2001, at which local residents on both sides and the developer were heard, Islington resolved to grant planning permission for all three developments. On 30 May 2002, following the conclusion of an agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Islington granted the planning permissions.
6. Although earlier threats of judicial review proceedings had not come to pass, judicial review proceedings which challenged the resolution of 10 December 2001 were launched by the Islington Stadium Communities Alliance (``ISCA'') and four individual local residents. Sullivan J refused permission on paper on 19 April 2002. The grounds before him were seen to have no merit and to amount to no more than a dispute about the planning merits which it was not for the court to resolve.
7. A renewed application for judicial review was heard by Richards J. On 30 May 2002, he ordered that the applications for permission should be dealt with at the same time as the substantive hearing. He ordered consolidated grounds to be served which would cover both matters newly raised before him and those previously raised before Sullivan J insofar as they were still pursued. 8. The matter now before me is brought by only two residents. The other claimants have fallen by the wayside. The consolidated grounds in part were not really pursued, notably to the extent that they raised human rights grounds, which were misconceived and unsupported by any evidence. A number of additional grounds were sought to be raised. The grounds raised were refined and alt...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Medway Council and Kent County Council & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 26, 2002, [2002] EWHC 2516 (Admin)


Case No: C/O 4548/2002
C/O 4815/2002
C/O 4896/2002
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 2516 ADMIN
THE IN HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Tuesday, 26 November 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
THE QUEEN
On the application of

------------------------------------------------
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
------------------------------------------------

John Steel Q.C., Robert White and Stephen Whale (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) for Claimants (1)
Brian Ash Q.C. and Thomas Hill (instructed by Legal Services, Es*** County Council) for Claimant (2)
John Hobson. Q.C. and Lisa Busch (instructed by Charles Russell Solicitors) for Claimants (3)
Timothy Corner Q.C. and Robert Palmer (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Mr Justice Maurice Kay :

1. It is expected that the demand for air travel will rise substantially over the next thirty years. In July 2002 the Department for Transport published The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East as a Consultation Document. It invited responses by 30 November 2002. It refers to the need for a long term framework that will maximise the beneficial aspects of aviation and minimise the negative effects. It will be followed in 2003 by a White Paper on air transport which will bring together a national airports policy and new policies on civil aviation. It is concerned with ``how much extra airport capacity, if any, to plan over the next 30 years, and where should any new airport capacity be located''. Projections of increase are difficult and depend upon a range of assumptions and variables but on a basis of ``unconstrained passenger demand'' the Consultation Document forecasts an increase in the South East from 117 million passenger movements in 2000 to 301 million in 2030. On any basis such a substantial increase would necessitate an increase in airport capacity either by the expansion of existing airports or by the establishment of a new airport or by some combination of the two. The Consultation Document describes options which would involve expansion at Heathrow and Stansted (and also Luton, but that has not figured in this case). It also includes the option of a possible new airport at Cliffe in North Kent. However, conspicuous by its absence is any option for new runway capacity at Gatwick. It is stated in terms:
``The Government will not include in the White Paper any options for new runways at Gatwick.'' This case is concerned with three challenges to the exclus...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
M, R (on the application of) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust & Ors, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, June 27, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1400 (Admin)

CO/1516/2002
Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWHC 1400 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT)
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2

Thursday 27 June 2002
B e f o r e:

MR JUSTICE BURTON

- - - - - - -

THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF M

-v-

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST

AND

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

AND

THE GOVERNOR OF HM PRISON FULL SUTTON

- - - - - -
(Computer-aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Telephone No: 0171-421 4040/0171-404 1400
Fax No: 0171-831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - -
MR P BOWEN (instructed by BINDMAN & PARTNERS, LONDON WC1X 8QB) appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
MR R CLAYTON QC (instructed by HEMPSONS SOLICITORS, PORTLAND ST, MANCHESTER, M1 3LF) appeared on behalf of the first Defendant.
MISS J RICHARDS (instructed by THE TREASURY SOLICITOR, LONDON SW1H 9AT) appeared on behalf of the second Defendant.
THE THIRD DEFENDANT DID NOT ATTEND AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED
- - - - - -
J U D G M E N T1. MR JUSTICE BURTON: In May 1989 the claimant, P.M, was convicted of three offences of rape, two of buggery, two of assault and two of false imprisonment. They were very serious offences indeed by a man who already had a considerable number of previous convictions. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
2. In June 1998 a psychiatric assessment of him was carried out by Dr Keitch of the Rampton Hospital. He was recognised as classifiable as psychopathically disordered within the Mental Health Act 1983 (``the MHA'') but there was considerable doubt and dispute about his treatability. Dr Keitch said as follows:
``Various opinions have been expressed with regard to treatability and unfortunately those who were more optimistic have not been able to proceed with therapeutic interventions. As a result P.M has become ``stuck'' within the Prison System and is, at present, going nowhere.''
3. On January 14th 2000 a transfer direction was made under section 47 of the MHA and a restriction direction under section 49. Those sections, in relevant part, read as follows:
``47(1) If in the case of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment the Secretary of State is satisfied, by reports from at least two registered medical practitioners-
(a) that the said person is suffering from mental illness, psychopathic disorder, severe mental impairment or mental impairment; and
(b) that the mental disorder from which that person is suffering is of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment and, in the case of psychopathic disorder or mental impairment, that such treatment is likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration of his condition;
the Secretary of State may, if he is of the opinion having regard to the public interest and all the circumstances that it is expedient so to do, by warrant direct that that person be removed to and detained in such hospital... as may be specified in the direction; and a direction under this section shall be known as ``a transfer direction''.'' ``49(1) Where a transfer direction is given in respect of any person, the Secretary of State, if he thinks fit, may by warrant further direct that that person shall be subject to the special restrictions set ...
[/align]

[هيثم الفقى]

[align=left]
Laing Homes Ltd. v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions & Anor, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, October 01, 2002, [2002] EWHC 1967 (Admin)

Case No: CO/1337/2002
Neutral Citation No: [2002] EWHC 1967 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL

Tuesday 1 October 2002
Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RICHARDS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Robin Purchas QC and Jonathan Milner (instructed by Laing Homes) for the Claimant
David Forsdick (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the First Defendant
Timothy Corner QC and John Pugh Smith (instructed by Olswangs) for the Third Defendant
(The Second Defendant did not appear nor was represented)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court

Crown Copyright ©



Mr Justice Richards:
1. The claimant, Laing Homes Limited (``Laing''), challenges under s.288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 a decision of the Secretary of State dated 6 February 2002 which granted outline planning permission to Pelham Homes Limited (``Pelham'') for residential development at a site North of Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire.
2. At no stage prior to the decision did Laing object to Pelham's application. Its present challenge arises out of the implications that the decision, or the reasoning in it, has for Laing's own application for planning permission for residential development at a site at Peters Road, Fareham, which is still before the Secretary of State following a call-in. In essence Laing complains that, for reasons that were unknown to Laing until the decision was issued, the decision meant that only one of the sites would gain planning permission and the Secretary of State acted unlawfully and unfairly in deciding to grant permission in respect of the Pelham site without considering whether the Laing site was a better alternative or alerting Laing so that it could make representations on the point. Thus the main issues raised by Laing are (1) whether in determining the Pelham application the Secretary of State should have considered the availability and suitability of the Laing site, (2) whether it was incumbent upon him to address the issue of the comparative merits of the two sites, (3) whether he acted unfairly in failing properly to consider the merits of the Laing site or in failing to afford Laing a proper opportunity of being heard before a decision was made in respect of the Pelham site, (4) whether he failed properly to understand and apply the policy requirements of PPG3 and (5) whether adequate reasons were given.
Factual history
3. The relevant structure plan is the Hampshire County Structure Plan 1996-2001 (Review), adopted in January 2000. The structure plan requires constituent authorities to make provision for new housing, including a baseline housing provision in policy H2 and a reserve housing provision in policy H4. The relevant local plan is the Fareham Local Plan Review, adopted in March 2000. In order to ensure that sufficient land is available to meet the structure plan requirements for the period 1999-2006, policy H1 of the local plan allocates a number of sites for residential development, with an indicative number of dwellings for each. They include the Pelham site (260 dwellings) and the Laing site (210 dwellings), as well as a third major site at Hunts Pond Road (240 dwellings). Both the Pelham site and the Laing site are greenfield sites the development of which would constitute an urban extension in policy terms. They were the only two which were before the Secretary of State for determination at the material time. 4. The planning application in respect of the Pelham site was made on 26 November 1999. Fareham Borough Council resolved to grant outline planning permission on 26 April 2000, subject to call-in by the Secretary of State. The application was called in by the Secretary of State on 7 August 2000. A public inquiry was held on 21-22 November 2000. The inspector subsequently reported to the Secretary of State, whose decision letter ...
[/align]