James v Powys County Council

This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review of the planning permission for the first of three properties on a site. The outline planning permission was challenged in a previous judicial review proceeding, and permission was refused on the papers and by Wyn Williams J following an oral hearing. I am informed by the claimant, Mr James, that he has appealed against Wyn Williams J’s decision to the Court of Appeal and that that appeal has not been heard yet and so has neither been dismissed or allowed.

The present application for judicial review was launched on 23 September 2009. Permission was refused by HHJ Jarman on 30 October. At the end of last week Mr James sought an adjournment of this hearing on the ground that there was further information which he wished to put to put before the court and because he wished to reach an amicable solution with the council. Given the history of this matter and the fact that more than one judge has considered that the challenges to Powys’s grant of outlined planning permission and the planning permission for the first building are totally without merit and the fact that the present application is said to be out of time and there has been at least one application for an adjournment in the past, I consider that the material referred to by Mr James in his letter did not justify an adjournment. He has had plenty of opportunity to negotiate an amicable settlement with the council, and if the council and he were both here for a renewed application then further discussions could take place. Accordingly, I refused Mr James’s application for an adjournment on Monday, 23 November.

Mr James then communicated with the court having received a telephone call from the court. He appears to have explained to whomever he spoke to that he was unwell and would not be able to attend today. There is before the court a letter from Mr James dated 24 November including a medical certificate from his doctor saying he is suffering from severe stress and is unable to attend court today.

In these circumstances I am not going to determine his renewed application. I have however set out the history of the matter so that it can be made available to the judge who does consider the renewed application when it comes forward. Clearly a claimant who is unwell and is appearing in-person should generally be given the benefit of any doubt and proceedings adjourned if necessary. The history of this matter and Mr James’s obvious strong feelings about the grant of a planning permission mean that it is perfectly understandable why he would be suffering from stress. While that may justify the adjournment today, it is important for the council and for the interested party that there be some certainty about the status of the planning permission.

So while I will adjourn this renewed application because of the medical certificate, the matter should come on as soon as possible. The court should communicate with Mr James and ask whether he is fit. If he remains unfit for a considerable period of time, the papers should be put before a judge who will decide whether in those circumstances in the light of the history of this case it is necessary to proceed without Mr James’s attendance. It would be open to Mr James of course to submit further representations in writing if he is not fit enough to attend court. It is, however, desirable that he should attend court and it is to be hoped that he will be fit enough to do so in the near future.

I am going to direct that a transcript of my remarks be prepared at public expense and made available to Mr James and to the defendant.