The claimants challenged a planning permission granted to a waste disposal site, saying that it violated their article 8 rights.
Held: The court asked whether there was reasonable and convincing evidence that the claimants quality of life would be so directly effected by the incinerator proposal as to engage article 8, ‘The answer to that question has to be no, even if one strictly applies the WHO guideline, ignoring the fact that it is only a guideline and not a mandatory requirement, and that a breach of the guideline does not automatically mean that there is serious pollution, much less that there is any significant danger to health.
The claimant’s is no more than a generalised concern as to the effects of the incinerator in terms of increased nitrogen dioxide emissions. Such generalised environmental concerns do not engage article 8, which is concerned with an individual’s right to enjoy life in his own home.’
Sulivan J considered the power of a court hearing an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings to determine the issue immediately having heard the applications: ‘I am satisfied that all the arguments open to the claimants on matters of fact and law have been placed before the Court. In the circumstances it would be wholly artificial to consider the by now academic question: is the claimant’s case arguable? Having heard the arguments I am in a position to determine the substantive application for judicial review on its merits.’
Judges:
Sullivan J
Citations:
[2001] EWHC Admin 560
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Asselbourg v Luxembourg ECHR 1995
The applicants complained that the grant of licences for a steelworks would result in pollution, release of toxic gases and noise, and that the grant of the licences would infringe their article 8 rights. The court rejected the application ‘From the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bushell and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Newcastle Licensing Justices and others Admn 31-Jul-2003
The claimants objected to a forced transfer of an unused justices on-line for the benefit of the licencee applicants. The licensees had first been refused a licence for certain premises, but then requested and were given transfer of an obsolete . .
Cited – Low and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 21-Jan-2009
In each case the applicant, a company based in Ireland had employed in its restaurants, Chinese nationals who were unlawfully present here. The company sought judicial review of the arrest of its employees.
Held: ‘None of the claimants had any . .
Cited – Savva, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Admn 11-Mar-2010
The claimant challenged the defendant’s policies on caring for elderly people within the community saying that it provided insufficient funds, and the procedures for review were inadequate and infringed her human rights. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Licensing, Judicial Review
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.186027
