Dreamland, Regeneration and Margate
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SEPTEMBER 2012 This month the newsletter tells the story But the tide at Margate is turning. Spurred on Text of the legal battle over the world renowned by the phenomenal success of the new Turner Dreamland Amusement Park in Margate and Contemporary art gallery, the Council resolved to considers the reinstatement of the PINS compulsorily acquire Dreamland under section compensation scheme. Other news includes: 226(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning a complaintText to the Aarhus Compliance TActext 1990 to create the world’s first heritage Committee about changes which prevent amusement park, to be developed in partnership a successful claimant in private nuisance with the Dreamland Trust and with offers of cases from recovering their ATE premium; funding from the Government’s Sea Change the close of the public examination into new Programme and the Heritage Lottery Fund. The nuclear power at Hinkley Point C and further development of the heritage amusement park at litigation challenging the Government’s policy Dreamland was specifically aimed at achieving of excluding former inhabitants of the Chagos the objectives of the Adopted Local Plan policy Islands in the Indian Ocean. T8. In a 15 day contentious inquiry that was Dreamland, regeneration and widely reported in the national media, the owners Margate of Dreamland set out a different vision. Their nebulous plans included wanting to develop In August, the Secretary of State for almost half of the site with over 450 houses, Communities and Local Government confirmed, relocation of some of the existing buildings without modification, Thanet District Council’s to a site some distance from Dreamland and compulsory purchase order of the site of the separated by a railway line. In a short decision world renowned but sadly derelict Dreamland letter, accepting his inspector’s recommendations, Amusement Park. In many respects, Dreamland the Secretary of State agreed with the inspector’s is synonymous with Margate. It had developed conclusion that the alternative proposals put in the nineteenth century as a leisure site in forward by the objectors were “fanciful and tandem with Margate’s development as Britain’s unlikely to succeed”. first holiday resort. In 1919, following a change The Secretary of State concluded that the in ownership, the site was transformed into an Council’s Phase 1 proposals described in the amusement park and named after Dreamland at order would make a valuable contribution to the Coney Island, New York. In its heyday it attracted economic, social and environmental well-being of over half a million visitors each year and its the immediate areas as well as the regeneration success was integral to that of Margate. Since its of Margate. closure in 2006 the site has rapidly deteriorated along with Margate’s fortunes. However, uniquely, The decision provides an ample Dreamland contains three listed buildings, two demonstration of the utility of section 226(1) (a) of them Grade II* including the famous Scenic as a tool for urban regeneration. This power to Railway, which fell into disrepair and necessitated compulsorily acquire land for planning purposes the Council in taking urgent action to preserve was significantly widened by the Planning and these buildings. Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 with the stated 1 aim of providing a positive tool to help acquiring ultimately settled with the Inspectorate paying authorities with planning powers to assemble those parties’ costs of redetermination. The land where this is necessary to implement the Parliamentary Ombudsman was also critical of proposals in their community strategies and the Inspectorate’s approach to compensation. Local Development Documents. These powers The August 2012 version of Good Practice are expressed in wide terms and can therefore Advice Note 15 (now entitled Feedback, be used by such authorities to assemble land for complaints and challenges) now says (para 24): regeneration and other schemes where the range of activities or purposes proposed mean that no “Where maladministration or an error other single specific compulsory purchase power by the Planning Inspectorate has led to would be appropriate. injustice or hardship, we will try to offer a remedy that returns the complainant Martin Edwards advised Thanet District to the position they would have been in Council in the lead up to the making of the otherwise. If that is not possible, the Planning compulsory purchase order and represented the Inspectorate will provide compensation for Council at the public inquiry. unnecessary expense incurred as a result of an acknowledged error where there are Planning Inspectorate reinstates compelling reasons to do so” compensation scheme Remedies may include ‘financial compensation for costs incurred as a result of The Planning Inspectorate has reintroduced our error’. The Inspectorate promise to ‘consider an ex gratia compensation scheme for costs carefully complaints and requests for financial caused by its errors including the redetermination compensation received within 6 months of the of appeals following High Court quashings. date of the error or of any subsequent appeal In the 1970s the Inspectorate practice was decision by us related to that error.’ to pay the costs which had been incurred on the Richard Harwood acted for the Claimant in Payne initial appeal hearing or inquiry. This changed in v Secretary of State. the 1980s to the practice of paying the costs of the redetermination rather than the initial hearing. The practice of making ex gratia payments was Complaint to the Aarhus well-known within the planning system although Compliance Committee not publicised until 2009. This system was ended in April 2011 without announcement or A complaint is being submitted to the consultation (merely removing references from Aarhus Compliance Committee in respect of a Good Practice Advice Note 15 Challenges and legislative change introduced by the Legal Aid complaints) with the Inspectorate later saying it and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 which will would rely on the Parliamentary Ombudsman to prevent a successful claimant in private nuisance settle claims. cases from recovering their ATE premium. The argument is that the change will restrict access to This change prompted two judicial reviews justice. over the costs of redetermining appeals where decisions had been quashed by the Courts prior The communication is submitted by the to April 2011: R(Koumis) v Secretary of State Environmental Law Foundation (ELF), a UK for Communities and Local Government and charity that enables communities and individuals R(Payne) v Secretary of State for Communities to use the law to protect and improve their and Local Government. Both cases were environment. ELF relies upon a national network 2 www.39essex.com2 of specialist environmental lawyers who provide year. The examination process is one of the most initial advice and assistance on a pro bono basis. significant tests of the new system for applications ELF submits that the UK has enacted primary to build nationally significant infrastructure in legislation that will restrict access to justice in England and Wales, introduced by the Planning environmental matters and therefore is contrary to Act 2008. It is the first examination of a nuclear the Aarhus Convention. In particular, s. 46 of the new build project. Legal Aid and the Punishment of Offenders Act Stephen Tromans QC and Justine Thornton 2012 (LASPOA 2012) amends earlier provisions act for EDF. Christiaan Zwart acts for the in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and Environment Agency. provides for a new s 58C which states: “A costs order made in favour of a party to proceedings who has taken out a costs insurance Round 3 of the Bancoult litigation policy may not include provision requiring the challenging the UK government’s payment of an amount in respect of all or part of longstanding policy of exclusion of the premium of the policy, unless such provision former inhabitants of the Chagos is permitted by regulations under subsection (2).” Islands in the Indian Ocean from the island This means that the after-the-event (ATE) insurance which covers: (i) the costs of expenses Judicial review proceedings are challenging such as court fees, expert reports, travel etc, and the decision of former foreign secretary, David (ii) the exposure and risk of paying an opponent’s Miliband MP, to designate a Marine Protected costs can no longer be recovered if a claimant in Area which includes the Claimants former home. legal proceedings is successful in a legal claim. Permission to apply for Judicial review and to cross-examine the UK government officials The Government argues that the ability to named in Wikileaks cables were granted in bring a claim in statutory nuisance under s. 82 August. The JR is likely to be heard in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is a substitute autumn. This will be the first time a UK higher but this is disputed. court considers Wikileaks material. Stephen Tromans QC is advising ELF pro In addition, lawyers for the Claimants are bono and is Chair of ELF. The complaint is being bringing a related information appeal which submitted by Hugh James as agents for ELF, seeks documents relied upon by the Foreign also acting pro bono (Neil Stockdale and Gareth Office to reach its conclusion that repatriation of Morgan) and supported by Richard Buxton (Paul Chagossians is not practicable. At the beginning Stookes). of September the First Tier Tribunal decided the appeal and ordered that some of that material Public Examination of the proposed (which is still awaited) be disclosed. new nuclear power station at Nigel Pleming QC, Lisa Giovannetti QC and Hinkley Point C draws to a close Richard Wald are instructed by Clifford Chance LLP on behalf of the Claimants. Steven Kovats On 21 September the public examination QC is acting for the Secretary of State for the into EDF Energy’s proposals to develop a new Foreign and Commonwealth Office.