Fordson Ltd v Essex County Council

A renewed application for permission to seek judicial review should be refused where the challenged planning decision is shown to have considered relevant alternatives, allowed affected persons a fair opportunity to object, and taken applicable Convention rights into account. Where Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol rights are engaged, the decision-maker must assess the interference and its proportionality. A decision balancing those rights against identified economic and public benefits is not arguable merely because affected residents disagree with the outcome.

Fordson Limited, a company formed for the purposes of litigation by residents living near a proposed waste transfer station in Chelmsford, sought permission to challenge Essex County Council’s decision allowing the station to be constructed and used. The proposed site was in an industrial and business area near residential properties.

The proposed grounds concerned the alleged interference with Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol rights, failure to consider alternative sites, and an allegedly flawed consultation involving an incomplete website and limited library opening hours. The central issue was whether the claim was arguable and capable of obtaining relief.

1. Permission refused. The claim was unarguable and relief would not be obtained.
2. The decision-making report had considered whether there was a sensible alternative site in the Chelmsford area. No such alternative had been found. The absence of demand for Class B industrial development at the site did not prevent the council from concluding that the waste transfer station was appropriate in the circumstances.
3. The consultation complaint disclosed no arguable prejudice. Although complaints were made about the website and the limited opening hours of the library holding the plans and information, affected persons had been able to submit objections. Nothing showed that the decision-making body had been materially misled or that the objectors had been prevented from presenting their case.
4. The report recognised that Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol were potentially engaged. The council took those rights into account and concluded that the balance favoured the economic benefits of the development. The court was satisfied that proper consideration had been given to whether the site was suitable and, if either right was interfered with, whether the interference was proportionate.
5. The court acknowledged the understandable concern of nearby residents about an unpleasant neighbouring use, but held that the need for waste-disposal facilities and the evidence supporting the site selection rendered the proposed challenge unarguable.