Judge rules warehouse developers can press on at Corby former Weetabix site

Residents in Corby, Northamptonshire, opposed to a major redevelopment of a former Weetabix factory have lost their High Court battle to halt the building works. Developers have been working on the site of the Weetabix and Alpen factory at Earlstrees Industrial Estate since September last year and were granted planning permissions in 2021 and 2022. They are turning the site into a warehouse and logistics centre. The residents of nearby Hooke Close are suing, claiming that the council did not properly consult them. According to court documents, the council did make a series of errors. Corby, once known as the home of Weetabix, has two disused Weetabix factories which, according to court documents, were filed as one site in the council’s planning database. As a result, when planning officers at North Northamptonshire Council  sent out consultation letters to local residents, they sent them to people living close to the wrong factory. And when they put up a public noticeboard, this too was outside the wrong site. Georgina Wallis, the resident who brought the claim, said she was aware of demolition works on the site in 2022 and groundworks in September 2023 but didn’t think they would affect her property. In January 2024 she was “horrified” when she saw a large metal framework being erected behind her garden and viewed the 2022 permission on the council’s website. Residents got together, spoke to the council and their MP, and filed a legal challenge to the development in April this year. The case was heard last month. The case centred on whether the residents’ long delay in filing was permissible. Planning judicial review proceedings should be begun within six weeks of a planning decision, unless a judge decides that there is good reason for the delay. At the trial, lawyers for the council argued that the claim was years too late and should be dismissed. Lawyers for the residents argued that this was because of the council’s failure to consult properly. In her ruling, planning judge Mrs Justice Lang found that the case was indeed out of time and should be dismissed. “Even though the claimant did not receive a neighbour consultation letter, she had other opportunities to find out about the application for planning permission, which was publicised by public notices, in the press and on the council website,” the judge said in her ruling, handed down yesterday.    “The grant of planning permission was also publicised in the press and on the council website,” she added. The major building works on the site, from May 2022 onwards, would have alerted residents to the fact that development was taking place, and they could have looked it up on the council website at that time. “From April 2023, there were large marketing boards erected on the site boundary advertising the site and showing a computer-generated image of the proposed development, with the developer’s contact details. Letters were sent to all residents of Hooke Close on a monthly basis from September 2023 by the building contractors to inform them of the progress of the works,” the judge said. “In this case, there was good reason for the initial delay, because of the failure to undertake neighbour consultation, but once the works began, and the claimant received notifications from [the first interested party’s] contractors, the claimant’s delay in commencing proceedings was unjustified.” The judge also ruled that the claimants should pay the council’s legal costs, up to a maximum of £5,000. R (on the application of Wallis) v North Northamptonshire Council [2024] EWHC 3076 (Admin) Planning Court (Mrs Justice Lang DBE) 2 December 2024