Court judgement given in Imperial Gardens case
Published 28 January 2011
The Hon. Mr Justice Supperstone has today given judgment at the High Court of Justice in the case of Stevenson and others, and London Borough of Southwark.
Mr. Stevenson alleged that the council's planning committee and officers had deliberately held up planning applications and 'bullied' Railtrack to conspire to refuse planning permission for a nightclub called Imperial Gardens. He alleged this was so as to make it easier for a regeneration programme, including a new railway station, to go ahead (proposals which were later shelved). He felt he should be compensated for this alleged misfeasance. Mr. Stevenson also initially alleged that the actions were racially motivated, an allegation he later withdrew during the court case.
Today, these serious and wholly inaccurate allegations have been entirely rejected by the High Court, and the claim has failed.
In summary, the Hon. Mr. Justice Supperstone, said: "In my view, it is highly improbable that any [Southwark Council officer] would have committed the wrongdoing alleged in order to promote the railway station."
He continued; "I find that there is no misfeasance by any of the defendant's officers (or by Councillor Ritchie), and no misfeasance for which the defendant is responsible. Accordingly, for the reasons I have given, this claim fails."
Mr. Stevenson and others, (directors of THK World Entertainments Limited (THK)) which had financial interest in a nightclub called Imperial Gardens, and music recording studios on Camberwell New Road, alleged that Southwark Council had, through wrongful acts or omissions, 'deliberately or recklessly undermined and destroyed' their business.
Mr. Stevenson submitted a planning application in 1995 for a Public Entertainment and Production House in Camberwell railway arches, now known as Imperial Gardens.
The first planning application was rejected due to loss of amenity. Later, in August 1996, the application was referred to the Planning Committee (due to public interest), and temporary planning permission was granted, with conditions which would enable the council to monitor if the club's business was having any local effect, this was not unique practice.
The claimant, Mr. Stevenson, alleged that with only a temporary permission, his plans to attract investment failed.
Mr. Stevenson did not apply for full planning permission until 1999, after repeated reminders that included threat of action from the council, because he was operating without planning consent. Meanwhile, in 2001, full planning consent was granted for a housing development near to the premises, called Fairview, which Mr. Stevenson alleges conflicted with his nightclub business; and that the council was malfeasant as it did not properly consult with him about the development. Imperial Gardens was granted planning permission in July 2002.
The court ordered the claimants to pay the council's legal costs and the issue of recovering these costs is now being considered by the council.
