Strongroom Limited, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hackney
[2024] EWHC 1221 (Admin)
Strongroom Limited v London Borough of Hackney
8 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 488 (Admin)
High Court
A recording studio sued the council and a developer because of construction noise. They settled, but the judge decided that nobody should have to pay the other's legal bills because the main points of the case weren't really won by either side.
Key Facts
- •Strongroom Limited (Claimant) owns noise-sensitive recording studios adjacent to a site (118 Curtain Road) undergoing development by Curtain Road Properties Limited (Interested Party).
- •Hackney London Borough (Defendant) is the local planning authority.
- •Two judicial review claims were brought challenging planning decisions related to noise and vibration limits during construction.
- •The First Permission (2018/0363) included Condition 15, specifying strict noise and vibration limits.
- •The Interested Party's attempts to discharge Condition 15 were contested by the Claimant due to alleged exceedances and inadequate testing.
- •The Second Permission (2020/3775) included Condition 6, requiring a Construction Management Plan but without the same stringent noise limits as Condition 15.
- •The Claimant challenged the discharge of Condition 6, arguing insufficient consideration of noise impacts.
- •The claims settled, with a settlement agreement addressing noise limits and costs.
Legal Principles
Approach to costs in settled Administrative Court cases.
R (M) v Croydon LBC [2012] 1 WLR 2607
Interpretation of planning permissions.
Barnett v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWCA Civ 476; Lambeth LBC v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] PTSR 1388; UBB Waste Essex Ltd v Essex CC [2019] EWHC 1924 (Admin)
Proper approach to officer reports to committee.
Mansell v Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1314; Juden v London Borough of Tower Hamlets & Ors [2021] EWHC; R (Mid-Counties Co-operative Ltd) v Forest of Dean District Council [2017] EWHC 20156; R (Village Concerns) v Wealden District Council & Ors [2022] EWHC 20139 (Admin); Bishop Stortford Civic Federation v East Hertfordshire District Council [2014] PTSR 1035
Costs where relief obtained unrelated to claim merits.
R (Tesfay) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] 1 WLR 4853; R (MH) (Eritrea) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1296
Outcomes
No order as to costs for both JR1 and JR2.
The Claimant did not succeed in quashing the planning decisions. While the Claimant secured agreement on the interpretation of Condition 15, this was not contested by the Defendant and was achieved without needing to initiate legal action. The settlement regarding noise limits with the Interested Party was a commercial agreement rather than a direct outcome of the legal claims.
Similar Cases
Davies, R (on the application of) Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
[2024] EWHC 2711 (Admin)
Joe Cook & Anor, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
[2024] EWHC 42 (Admin)
Susan Hall, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Greenwich
[2023] EWHC 1588 (Admin)
Ardleigh Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Tendring District Council
[2024] EWHC 648 (Admin)