rlhttp://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/1136342/pickles-delays-post-nppf-decision-interchange/rl

Seems like Eric Pickles office is making a habit of this at the moment!

Pickles delays post-NPPF decision on interchange

By Jamie Carpenter Wednesday, 13 June 2012
Communities secretary Eric Pickles has delayed his decision on a controversial rail freight interchange near St Albans in Hertfordshire.

Pickles had been due to issue his decision on developer Helioslough’s planning appeal for a rail freight interchange at Park Street on or before 13 June.

But St Albans City and District Council said in a statement that it had been told that "this is no longer to be the case" and that no new decision date has been set.

Pickles’ decision on the interchange had been due by 5 April 2012, but following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in March he informed all parties that he had postponed his decision to allow the parties time to deal with the implications of the framework.

The NPPF introduced a presumption in favour of sustainable development and became a material consideration in planning decisions with immediate effect.

St Albans City and District Council said that it had provided its representations to the Department for Communities and Local Government on 16 April.

A DCLG spokesman said: "We hope to issue the decision as soon as we can."

In September 2010 the secretary of state dismissed Helioslough’s appeal against St Albans City and District Council’s decision to refuse planning permission for the interchange.

But Helioslough challenged the secretary of state’s decision in the High Court and on 1 July 2011 a judge quashed the decision and referred the matter back to Pickles to redetermine.

St Albans City and District Council had previously rejected two separate applications for the scheme, one in 2009 and one in 2007.

If the developer can challenge the decision in High Court, could Leeds Council and those opposing the scheme do the same for Newmarket, effectively dragging it on furthermore?

I know it is for all intents and purposes going to be futile but if the developer can challenge it through Legal processes then surely the same could be said of the opposition too?

Put those straws down fully

As far as i know the SOS's decision is final.

So we were all assuming after all this time the decision had surely been made.
Now it seems that it perhaps has not yet been made.
Hmmmm.

I'm pretty certain it has been made.

Not sure on the process but I read it as the developer submitted application, which was refused locally but this was appealed and so taken to the SoS. SoS looked at the plans etc and made a decision that it had been correct decision and so backed the refusal. I believe the SoS looks at appeals too as well as called-in passed applications. Developer wasn't happy with this so took it to High Court who has asked the SoS to go over it again (hence why SoS is making another decision on it).

some info herehttp://www.stalbans.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/planning/railfreight/rl

but I'm out of my depth now. I don't know if there is a difference between a PI from a planning that has been rejected & appealed and a PI from an objection to passing plans.

Having read the Planning Website, a public inquiry is in the main held for both called-in applications and appeals.

FYI

8. CHALLENGING DECISIONS AND MAKING COMPLAINTS
8.1 The High Court is the only authority that can require
reconsideration of an Inspector’s or Secretary of State’s decision.
Applications to the High Court to challenge decisions must be
made within 6 weeks from the date of the Inspector’s decision on
the appeal.

That's an appeal against the local authority, not an appeal against the SoS ruling following a PI. It won't apply in our case and the only option open to those against NM would be a judicial review - i.e. to question the procedure itself - not the decision.

The second case is a planning appeal and not a Public Inquiry. So the developer challenged the planning appeal decision in the high court, if they and then a high court judge felt their was a case to answer, then a high court hearing is held.

In theory you can ask the high court to consider and challenge the PI, but in the case of a PI, only the procedure itself can be challenged. not the decision. In the majority of cases this would only delay a decision and very rarely does it change the decision if a judge orders a new public inquiry.

I think the objectors would be mad to consider a high court challenge, both because I don't see what their case would be on Newmarket and also you have to have very deep pockets to head to the high court! A three figure sum is what they would be potentially looking at, developers think carefully about these things, if it was your own cash you would have to be confident of victory and have it to spare. Even then, the high court don't make the decision, it goes back to the SoS and possibly the public. Even after all this, they could end up losing again in 6 months... a big risk for private individuals!

But a risk worth paying if it keeps delaying it and delaying it and if there's even a slight risk it might not go through. What about the LDF decision? Can that be challenged?