|
Deponent : Richard John Tassell Filed on behalf of : Applicant No. of Affirmation : 2nd Date : 22nd April 1997
|
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
In the matter of an Application for Judicial Review
B E T W E E N :
- and -
MID-SUSSEX DISTRICT COUNCIL
- ex parte -
RICHARD TASSELL
___________________________________
S E C O N D
A F F I R M A T I O N
___________________________________
1. I make this Second Affirmation further to my Affirmation of 6th February 1997. The matters deposed to herein are, save where it appears otherwise, within my own personal knowledge, and are, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true.
2. I refer now to paragraph 7 of my First Affirmation and to Exhibit "RJT 5" thereto. That exhibit was described in error as being a copy of the Structure Plan of the West Sussex County Council ("WSCC"). Exhibit "RJT 5" is in fact a copy of part only of the Structure Plan of the WSCC. There is now produced and shown to me marked "RJT 13" a copy of the full Approved Structure Plan for WSCC dated July 1993. Further, there is also now produced and shown to me marked "RJT 14" a copy of the Deposit Draft (Third Review) West Sussex Structure Plan dated June 1996.
3. I refer further to paragraph 7 of my First Affirmation and in particular to references therein to an earlier but no longer valid Local Development Plan and to a current draft Local Plan. There is now produced to me and shown marked "RJT 15" a copy of the East Grinstead and Worth Local Plan - Written Statement - dated Oct. 1985. There is further now produced and shown to me marked "RJT 16", a copy of the Mid-Sussex District Plan Part I - Introduction, Strategy and General Policy, Consultation Draft - dated June 1996. There is further now produced and shown to me marked "RJT 17" a copy of the Mid-Sussex Local Plan Part IV - East Grinstead and North Mid-Sussex Consultation Draft - dated June 1996.
4. I refer further to page 6 of my First Affirmation, and in particular to numbered paragraph (i) at the top of that page. I referred in that sub-paragraph to an extract from the WSCC Traffic Survey dated May 1990 exhibited thereto as part of the bundle comprising exhibit "RJT 7". There is now produced and shown to me marked "RJT 18" a copy in full of Volume I of the East Grinstead Traffic Survey dated May 1990 and headed "Summary Report". There is further now produced and shown to me marked "RJT 19" Volume 4 of that same survey, also dated May 1990, and headed "Traffic and Accidents".
5. I now refer to paragraph 8 of my First Affirmation and in particular to a number of matters referred to at page 6 of the Affirmation (bundle page 8). I referred in the penultimate paragraph on that page to a traffic survey conducted following the opening of a Sainbury's store at the south corner of the gyratory road system of which the London Road (A22) forms the northern leg. There is now produced and shown to me marked "RJT 20" a copy of the Traffic Impact Assessment dated February 1996 prepared for J Sainsbury PLC by the Mayer Brown Partnership, headed "Proposed Petrol Filling Station, Brooklands Way, East Grinstead". The application in question was in fact subsequently rejected by both the East Grinstead Town Council ("EGTC") and by the Mid-Sussex District Council ("MSDC"). A proposed appeal against refusal by J Sainsbury PLC did not in the event take place, and that scheme has been discontinued.
6. It is my contention that in requiring a traffic impact assessment from J Sainsbury PLC but not from McDonald's Restaurants Limited, the MSDC has acted both inconsistently, unfairly, and in breach of the principles of natural justice. Notwithstanding the differences between a petrol filling station and a McDonald's Drive-Thru, insofar as traffic considerations are concerned, there are many similarities. Given that the two proposals are on sites geographically very close to one another, and falling on the same road system, it seems clear that different considerations were applied in considering the likely increase in traffic movements arising from the Sainsbury's scheme than have been applied in considering the McDonald's scheme. The two proposals were further considered by the MSDC within 12 months of each other, and relevant Council policy was the same at the time of each application and consideration thereof. I would respectfully ask this Honourable Court to consider whether the MSDC have acted both procedurally improperly and substantively irrationally in requiring a traffic impact assessment for one scheme but not the other.
7. Further, I now refer to the following copy documents which are produced and shown to me marked as follows: -
9. There is also now produced and shown to me marked "RJT 29" a copy of the Office Copy Entries for the White Lion, 165 London Road, East Grinstead, showing entries subsisting on the Register at 9 September 1996.
10. I now refer to the exhibits hereto and would comment in general terms that the policy documents and publicly issued documents of the WSCC and MSDC show an environmental awareness and place considerations of environmental importance at the forefront of their policies. These considerations were not considered either properly or at all in relation to the application by McDonald's Restaurants Limited. I would accordingly ask this Honourable Court to make an Order in the terms sought in the present proceedings.
|
Other documents: |
BEFORE
ME.........................................................................
...............................
( A Solicitor / A Commissioner for Oaths / An Officer of the
court )
( appointed by the Judge to take Affidavits
)
[ Back to the Residents Page ]