England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		CO/9062/2008 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		1st April 2009

1. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: This is a claim brought under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act seeking to quash a decision of an inspector which upheld a refusal of planning permission for the demolition of existing houses which were used for a mosque and madressa at an address in Sheffield and the construction of a new mosque and madressa to take their place.
2. A considerable number of grounds have been relied on, but the starting point is the true construction of the relevant plan policy which was applicable. Mr Juss has submitted that the Inspector misunderstand the policy and that therefore, on that basis, her decision was unlawful.
3. The policy in question is H14 in the UDP. The relevant provisions of that are as follows:

"In Housing Areas, new development or change of use will be permitted provided that:

a. new buildings and extensions are well designed and would be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings..."

There then follow in b to h various other conditions which are not material for the purposes of this claim. Then, under a subheading "and, for non-housing C3 uses":

"... provided that it would also:

l. be on a scale consistent with the residential character of the Area or meet primary local needs, or (in the case of uses other than shops) occupy an existing building set in its own grounds."

4. The submission of Mr Juss is that it does not apply in circumstances of this particular planning application. If it does, he submits that, since the use was a non-housing use, the relevant condition was (l) and not (a).
5. His first submission is that what was proposed did not amount to new development. It certainly is not a change of use because the permitted use was as a mosque and madressa. As I have said, what was proposed was that the existing buildings, which were originally two dwelling houses, which it would appear dated from Victorian times and which in themselves had no particular architectural merit, should be demolished and in their place there should be built a new, and on any view well-designed, mosque. That, submits Mr Juss, is not new development. He suggests that it is not development, as I understand it, at all. However, it is plain from the wording in (a) itself that it was intended to cover extensions to existing buildings, and thus, as it seems to me, any construction would amount to development, and it would be new development if it was something which was not there before. Thus, demolition and construction clearly amounts to new development, and accordingly H14 applies.
6. The second submission is that since this is non-housing therefore not (a) but (l) applies. Each of (a) and (l) talk about scale and consistency in effect with the area, but (a) is not cumulative but they are alternative grounds; that is to say, must be on a scale consistent with the residential character and area or meet primarily local needs. The argument is that it clearly does, as we shall see, primarily meet local needs and therefore there was no need for it also to be on a scale consistent with the residential character of the area.
7. But it is not the case that (a) and (l) cover precisely the same matters. (a) requires that the new building should be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings and is thus looking at the immediate vicinity of the building which is to be constructed, whereas (l) requires that it be on a scale consistent with the residential character of the area; residential character of the area meaning something much wider than the immediate neighbourhood.
8. It seems to me that the existence of the alternatives in (l) is consistent only with the application primarily of (a), because it would be surprising if there were no limitation in the policy based upon the need for any new building to be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings. If in planning terms it was not in scale and character with neighbouring buildings it would be surprising if planning permission were permitted.
9. Accordingly, it seems clear to me that the true construction of H14 is indeed that (a) applies and (l) also would apply. (l) would not be the only condition in relation to non-housing use, but again the other ones are not material for the purposes of this case. There is no question that it would conform to (l), as it seems to me, because it does meet primary local needs, but, as we shall see, the main basis upon which the Inspector decided that planning permission should be refused was because in her view it would not be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings.
10. I turn therefore to look at the particular circumstances of the application and the grounds relied on by the Inspector to refuse permission.
11. The site in question is on what is clearly a relatively busy street corner. It comprises two dwelling houses, and in fact I gather there are in addition some portakabins which have been put on site in order to cater for those who wish to make use of the mosque and, so far as the portakabins are concerned, the attached madressa. As it is it is not entirely suitable, in the sense that the buildings themselves of course were not designed for the purposes of a mosque and madressa and are not sufficiently commodious, nor indeed do they look the part, as it were, although that is, I fear, something which is not unusual throughout cities in this country because purpose built mosques are not all that common.
12. The proposed building is, as the Inspector records, well-designed. What she says about it is in paragraphs 15 and 16. She says:

"The site would be excavated and the mosque would sit flat in the ground. Its parapet would be approximately 13.2m high at the corner, and the eaves lines of the Barnsley Road elevation would then drop in relation to the rise of the land. I realise that the proposed building would reach a similar height above street level as the existing mosque. However, because it would be dug down and its parapet would effectively correspond to the ridge of the existing (pitched roof) property, it would, in my view, have a visibly greater slab height. The parapet would also be higher than the eaves of the adjoining dwellings at 302 Barnsley Road and 4 Osgathorpe Road, although they are on raised land.

16. The minaret would rise approximately 9m and 18.5m respectively from the roof. I have no objections to these features, because they would be decorative rather than domineering. The minaret specifically would reflect the height of trees in the nearby nature reserve and appear as an elegant landmark."

She then went on to express concern that:

"... with high eaves in relation to adjoining houses, and a poor relationship to the topography of the area, the body of the mosque would appear bulky and overbearing."

She concluded:

"Taking its scale, siting and slab height together, I consider that the building would appear over-large, cramped within the site and unacceptably obtrusive within the street scene."

Having said that, she indicated that there were aspects of the design which were welcome, that the orientation of the mosque towards Mecca would be visibly beneficial and it would not follow the established building lines along the relevant streets but turn to address the corner, that would reinforce, as she put it, the distinctive stages of the development. But she went on to say that neither the design nor the position of the proposed mosque would mitigate or justify its excessive scale or cramped siting in relation to nearby properties, and she was concerned that the slab height would be emphasised by the fenestration, because the arched windows extending to the first and second floors would be considerably taller than the ground floor windows below. Her conclusions were as follows at paragraph 19:

"To conclude, I find that the proposed development represents a serious attempt to design a prestigious holy building. However, its quality and character would be undermined by insensitivity to the scale of nearby properties, and it would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area."

She said that it would comply with some policies but conflict with, inter alia policy, H14, and she mentions some others, "which require development to be in scale and character with neighbouring buildings, respect skylines and roofscapes, and respect the character and appearance of Areas of Special Character", this being an area of special character. She concluded that the policy requirements should prevail. She was obliged of course by virtue of 38(6) of the 2004 Act to consider whether the application complied with relevant policies within the plan. The general approach is if it did not, an application would be likely to fail.

13. The applicants had consulted with the planning officers, as one would expect, and had as a result after such discussions presented a detailed application which the officers considered to be acceptable, and indeed the report the relevant officer made to the planning committee recommended that planning permission should be granted. I should say that there were a very large number of supporters for the proposal. There were some objectors, but the volume of support far outweighed the objections.
14. The officer's view did not prevail with the planning committee and planning permission was refused on 24th October 2007. The reasons for refusal were stated as follows:

"(unchecked)

1. The local planning authority consider that the proposed building would be out of scale and character with the locality, which lies within an area of special character, and would detract from the amenities of local residents. Therefore such development is contrary to policy H14(a) and (l) of the Unitary Development Plan.

2. The local planning authority consider that the proposed building would be of such a scale as to generate a significant amount of traffic over and above the current level. The amount of off street car parking to be provided is considered insufficient to cater for the expected traffic generation and will lead to increased on street car parking to the detriment of pedestrian and vehicular safety. As such the proposal is contrary to policy H14(k) of the Unitary Development Plan."

I have not read that before, but it reads that the development should not lead to air pollution, noise, smell, excessive traffic levels or other nuisance or risk to health and safety of people living nearby.

15. Mr Juss has drawn my attention to the very full and well put together grounds of appeal to the Inspector, in which the first submission made was that policy H14 should be construed in the way that Mr Juss submitted to me that it should. He complains that the Inspector did not specifically deal with that argument.
16. The simple answer to that submission is that it is clear from the way the Inspector set the matter out that she was taking the view that H14(a) was the applicable policy and that accordingly she must have rejected, and in my judgment correctly rejected, the argument based on the proper construction of H14.
17. Mr Juss then submitted that the Inspector's reasoning was inappropriate, and indeed that the conclusions that she reached were irrational. I have, I think, correctly set out her reasoning on this aspect.
18. It is clear beyond any question what she was deciding, and that was simply that the scale, the size of the building and she describes that what particularly concerned her was that it was out of keeping with the neighbouring buildings. For that reason, in her view, it failed to comply with what was required by policy H14(a). She had a lot to say in favour of the proposal, but its size essentially was what, in her view, meant that she should refuse permission. That was a planning judgment, and a planning judgment which she was entitled to reach. As it seems to me, it is quite impossible to say that her reasons were either irrational or inadequate in the circumstances. Accordingly, there is, in my view, no error of law in that finding.
19. That would clearly suffice to show that this claim must fail, because that was undoubtedly the main basis upon which she decided this application had to fail. Indeed, when one looks at her conclusions under the heading "Other Matters" at the end of her decision, she says in paragraph 44:

"UDP Policy H14 allows for non-housing uses in housing areas which would be on a scale to meet primarily local needs. However, I have found that the proposed development would be larger than that existing, and have seen no overriding evidence that its size would be essential."

Indeed, she said in the previous paragraph that she was not convinced that the scheme represented the only viable way of providing sustainable building to meet the appellant's or the congregation's needs. It could not have been clearer to the appellants that the basis upon which she was turning down the application was because she took the view that it was essentially too large and over-powering in the immediate neighbourhood of where it was to be placed.

20. However, there were other matters that were relied on in her decision to support her conclusion that planning permission should not be granted. Indeed, the local planning authority's second reason was based upon the generation of traffic and the problems that would be created by such generation.
21. Mr Juss has submitted that there was no evidence before the Inspector which would have justified her conclusions that there would be a greater generation of traffic. Indeed, the evidence before her was such as would suggest that, if there were any extra traffic, it would be dealt with by the system that those responsible for the running of the mosque had put in place by having someone to act as a warden outside, and that this would not only not show any problems but had clearly worked, and when on some occasions there were extra people, extra traffic for example at an important, for a funeral, or whatever, at the mosque there was no problem at all. In those circumstances it is submitted that any extra traffic could be catered for.
22. It is further submitted that in fact the evidence showed that additional traffic was improbable. That was because the mosque was used by those who lived locally and essentially by those who lived within walking distance, and the vast majority of those visiting would be able to and indeed did walk to the mosque. Thus again, even extra capacity, and even if extra people were attracted, the probability was that they would not create any extra traffic but those attending would either walk or perhaps use public transport, because there is a bus stop immediately outside on a road along which a considerable number of bus routes run. Accordingly, on the evidence Mr Juss submits that the conclusions reached by the Inspector in relation to the problems of extra traffic were simply not available to him.
23. She dealt with this under two headings, "Highway Safety" and "Car Parking Provision", although the two to an extent overlap. She refers to the increase in the floor space, the existing being 959 metres or thereabouts and the proposed being very much more, some 3248 square metres, and the proposed multi-purpose hall would accommodate about 200 to 300 people. There would be, she said, an increased capacity in the mosque of some 200 compared to what existed. There was some evidence as a result of a survey over ten days in April 2008 of numbers attending, and in fact there was one occasion, that was I think a funeral, when 360 people attended, but on Friday lunch time, when of course was the time when more worshippers would be expected being of course a holy day, there were some 210 people before lunch time prayers. At other prayer times it seems that certainly well under a 100 people would normally attend.
24. It is to be noted that in their report to the committee the officers deal with the possibility of extra traffic in this way:

"(unchecked)

Most of the catchment area of the mosque and madressa is within walking distance. The impact of visitors attending the mosque and madressa is a concentrated one on arrival and departure followed by significant lengths of time when visitor activity is in the street alone. The mosque and madressa generate significant pedestrian and local activity at such peak times. The peak times for pedestrian and vehicle activity is Friday prayers and the daily madressa finishing time [that, as I understand it, is normally about 8 o'clock in the evening]. Whilst the proposed building will replace and approve existing facilities for visitors to the mosque and madressa, the size of the proposed hall and multi-purpose room and the increased number of classrooms will increase the capacity of the facility and has the potential to attract a significant increase in visitors. It is considered that whilst the proposal has the potential to attract a significant increase in visitors to the site, the surrounding road network can accommodate the increase in associated vehicular traffic. To minimise the demand for on street parking in the locality it is considered necessary to restrict the maximum potential visitor activity to the site by attaching appropriate conditions that ensure that the main uses do not overlap."

There were other traffic calming measures suggested. In consequence, the officer said that it was considered that the proposed development was acceptable in highway terms, subject to appropriate conditions. However, it is not there suggested that there would not be the possibility of increased vehicular traffic. That, of course, was a view formed following the detailed discussions with the representatives of the appellants.

25. The Inspector dealt with this in paragraphs 25 and 27 of her decision. She said this in paragraph 25:

"The appellant suggests that even if capacity would increase, the number of daily worshippers or pupils would not necessarily rise. I do not see how this could be guaranteed. Other mosques in the area would stay open, but I have seen no assessment of how their facilities would compare with those proposed. The number of staff at the masjid would remain the same, but they could be assisted by volunteers, and letters supporting the proposal suggest that the congregation has grown in recent years in response to new community and educational programmes. In my view, the proposed development would consolidate the intensification in use enabled by the portakabins, if not attract new users.

26. In terms of transport implications, I realise that most religious people prefer to use a local place of worship, and this is particularly the case for Muslims, who pray fives times a day. In a supplementary statement dated September 2007, the appellant indicates that 81% of pupils live in the Burngreave and Firth Park areas, and 52% walk to the existing madressa. The proposed development would include 10 cycle parking stands and ... would be accessible by public transport. On a day-to-day basis, I consider that it would continue to primarily serve the local population, who would often travel on foot or other sustainable means.

27. However, the September 2007 statement indicates that 34% of existing pupils are brought by private transport, while the April 2008 survey shows that some people use their car when travelling for prayer or events. The letters of support and evidence from the appellant suggest that a small but material proportion of the congregation are not from the local area. Having found that the proposed masjid could intensify use of the site, I also consider that it could generate a significant increase in vehicular traffic over and above the current level."

26. It is true that there is but a small amount of evidence that justifies that conclusion, and indeed, as the Inspector herself recognised, the majority of those attending would be expected to come on foot. Nonetheless, just as the officer took the view after discussions that there was a possibility of increased vehicular traffic, so, as it seems to me, the Inspector was entitled to reach the same conclusion. As Mr Moffat has submitted, she was not reaching a firm conclusion on that; indeed, she says in terms that she was not able to reach a firm conclusion in the absence of any transport assessment, which she suggested, having regard to the floor area, was desirable. She was entitled, in my view, to exercise her judgment, basing it upon her knowledge as a planning inspector, that there was at the very least a real possibility of an increase in traffic and that that is something which could properly be taken into account in deciding whether permission should be granted.
27. She then went on to consider the question of car parking provision to cater for any such traffic. She made the point, and indeed that is subject of a separate submission that the madressa could be regarded as similar to a school, but, in contrast to schools generally, the children would normally be collected in the evening as opposed to in the afternoon and at that time in the evening it would be expected that most people would not be at work, and thus there would be greater pressure on such spaces as existed in the local streets for car parking. But in relation to car parking in paragraph 32 she said this:

"The question then arises as to whether overspill parking would be unacceptably harmful. Since there are several nearby roads where parking is not restricted, I consider that limited on-street parking need not cause unacceptable inconvenience or danger. However, I am concerned that, especially when evening classes finish, there would be a high influx of traffic to the area, with large numbers of drivers seeking to park as close to the site as possible, and depart within a few minutes. This could lead to indiscriminate parking, congestion, obstructions and a high risk of collisions."

Particularly in winter time when it is dark, or when the weather was inclement, it is not at all unreasonable to express the view that there was a likelihood, and certainly a real possibility, of the increased traffic to collect the children from the madressa and that that could create a problem in relation to finding somewhere to park or possibly having to leave vehicles in positions which created some real obstruction or danger. True it is, as I have said, that there has been no problem hitherto, and indeed, as far as I am aware, certainly there is no evidence of any complaint at all having been made in relation to parking. Nonetheless, as it seems to me it is not possible to say that on the material before her the Inspector was not entitled to have regard to that and to rely on it as an added ground for refusal.

28. I am bound to say that the traffic issues, had they stood alone and had they been the only basis upon which planning permission was refused, might well not have prevailed in all the circumstances, but they were not. They did not stand on their own and essentially they were what has been described as make weights; the main ground being the unacceptable bulk and size of the building in its neighbourhood.
29. The Inspector added to the question of size and bulk her observations when she viewed that it would have an unacceptable adverse effect upon two neighbouring properties. Mr Juss makes the point that none of the occupants of those properties objected to the development. On the other hand, that is not, in planning terms, the point. Permission runs with the land and it may well be that in the future others want to live in those properties and the question is whether the existence of the mosque in the form that was proposed would have an adverse effect upon the occupants or the occupation of those premises. Of course it would or could affect the ability to dispose of those on a proper basis. That was essentially a matter for her conclusion. It is true that the officers formed a different view, but she visited the site, she was aware of the positioning and size of the building, she could see for herself what was there, and she was entitled to form the judgment as she did that it would have this adverse effect on the living conditions of the three adjoining properties.
30. The final matter which was raised by Mr Juss was an assertion that there was a breach of various articles of the Human Rights Convention. He refers to what the Inspector said in paragraph 33, where she said this:

"The proposed madressa could be compared to a school, and educational establishments create short-term traffic problems in many urban areas. However, this would not be a good reason to allow the appeal, and in any event most school classes end in the afternoon. When children are taken from the site, I would expect there to also be a high demand for on-street parking from local residents who are home from work."

The point she was making was, as I have already indicated, that when the children have left in the evening there would be expected to be more cars parked because residents would not have used them to get to work or to be away at work but would have them or be likely to have them parked near or outside their homes. Mr Juss submits that drawing this distinction was discriminatory against the mosque and Muslims who were attending the mosque, and he went on to suggest that there was in the circumstances a breach of Article 9 and Article 8, together with Article 2 of the First Protocol, that is the right to education, coupled with Article 14, the prohibition of discrimination.

31. There is no question of discrimination here. The Inspector was simply making the factual point that because the children were collected in the evening there would be a greater traffic problem, that was her conclusion. With the greatest respect to Mr Juss, that has absolutely nothing to do with the Human Rights Act or articles of the Convention. There is nothing in that point at all.
32. I can understand perhaps why the appellant may have thought that there was a degree of discrimination, but in reality and after analysis, as I hope they understand, there was not. They certainly may disagree with the conclusions reached by the Inspector, but there was no question of discriminating against Muslims in the decision.
33. I am bound to say, in conclusion, that I have considerable sympathy with the appellant in this case. It is clear that there is much positive support for the proposal and indeed the existing premises are clearly inadequate and unsuitable for the purpose. I very much hope that they will be able to produce a scheme which does meet the objections of the planning authority and of the Inspector. It may be that they will have to think in rather smaller terms in order to comply, but I can only allow this claim if persuaded that there was an error of law, and whether or not I agree with the conclusions of the inspector is, I am afraid, nothing to the point.
34. For the reasons I have given, I am satisfied that there was no error of law which would justify the quashing of the decision. Like it or not, the Inspector under our system was the ultimate final judge in planning terms of what was or was not acceptable and it is not possible for this court to overturn or go behind that judgment. In those circumstances, I am bound to say with a degree of regret, I have to dismiss this claim.
35. MR MOFFAT: My Lord, very grateful for that. That being your Lordship's judgment, I ask for an order for the Secretary of State's costs.
36. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Mr Juss, I do not think you can resist that, can you?
37. MR JUSS: The costs as set out are contested.
38. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Sorry, I am dealing with the principle first, quantum is a different point.
39. MR JUSS: Yes.
40. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: You have been served a schedule?
41. MR JUSS: Yes.
42. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: You are asking me to assess it?
43. MR MOFFAT: Yes, my Lord.
44. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Seems a little higher than usual for the Secretary of State.
45. MR MOFFAT: My Lord, I think that maybe relates to the fact, as your Lordship well knows, when these claims are filed the Treasury Solicitors prepares an advice which goes to the client department. The reason the costs are higher than usual, I am bound to say, is because there were numerous grounds.
46. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I know, but actually, although it takes time to read them, and with great respect to Mr Juss, they were not particularly difficult to -- I mean, you go through the Inspector's decision ...
47. MR MOFFAT: Your Lordship is of course right, but one still has to work through the grounds.
48. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I am not sure working through the grounds justifies 11 or 12 hours, does it?
49. MR MOFFAT: Well, my Lord, that was the time it has taken. As I say, the grounds were numerous.
50. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: To some extent Mr Juss has to take some responsibility for possible extra time, but not I think 12 hours.
51. MR MOFFAT: I am not sure there is much more I can add.
52. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Mr Juss, as you gather, I certainly would be prepared to reduce it to some extent. Is there anything you particularly want to attack?
53. MR JUSS: My Lord, there are a number of matters. Attendance on the client --
54. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Always in these 288s they have to obviously ask the Inspector what her view is.
55. MR JUSS: We have not gone through it with a toothcomb, but it does appear to be excessive.
56. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Yes. Draw my attention to anything in particular that you would say you find unacceptable. Your solicitor has some idea because you know what your costs were. I accept they were usually higher than the Treasury Solicitor's. My experience is they are usually greater.
57. MR JUSS: The charge for the first item of £200 per hour. Those who instruct me are senior solicitors, their fees are not as high as that.
58. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: £200 in London is standard. I think you usually charge £200 now, the Treasury.
59. MR MOFFAT: Yes, that is the standard rate, which is generally lower than the equivalent rate for a solicitor of similar --
60. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: You are from Sheffield?
61. MR JUSS: That is right.
62. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: What is their hourly rate?
63. MR JUSS: (inaudible).
64. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: An awful lot need not have been there. There was no need to put in all the supporting letters and so on. All I needed to know was that there were x number amount.
65. MR JUSS: It does not take that long --
66. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I am sorry, it is something that I spend my time complaining about, the unnecessary paperwork that the court gets landed with. Do not forget that we do like sometimes to work at home rather than stay in this building until late at night, and you do not endear yourself to a judge if you produce a large fat volume which he then has to cart around, particularly when he discovers that the vast bulk of it is wholly unnecessary.
67. MR JUSS: I appreciate that, but nonetheless --
68. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Incidentally, may I bang a drum that I have been banging recently, and that is in cases where there are substantial documents, this maybe would not qualify, but always think in terms of A5. This court welcomes A5. Have you come across those?
69. MR JUSS: A5?
70. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Size of the paper, the little paper which (a) are cheaper, you do not use so much paper, and (b) make it a lot easier to store and carry round. This court is encouraging in appropriate cases, where there are for example more than one bundle, use it if you will, certainly there would be no objection from the court. Not everyone of my brethren entirely agrees, but as a general proposition think in those terms and the court will always accept A5.
71. You say that the £200 an hour for the 12 hours --
72. MR JUSS: (inaudible)
73. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: You paid for those.
74. MR JUSS: Yes. The fact that the lever arch file is as full as it is --
75. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: If you paid for it you are not going to have to pay them for it.
76. MR JUSS: My learned friend's point is that the costs in terms of preparation in relation to that has brought the bill --
77. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I think I am with you on the 12 hours attendance on client and work on documents 7 hours. I do not think frankly either of those are justified. Attendance on hearing. 5 hours.
78. MR JUSS: Yes.
79. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Perhaps we knock an hour off, do we not? £200 off that.
80. MR JUSS: Work on documents.
81. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Are you querying counsel's fees? I am bit out of date on counsel's fees.
82. MR JUSS: (inaudible)
83. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Inevitably it will be a rounded figure, I am not going to go into precise figures, Mr Juss. I am thinking in of £5,000, which would include VAT, as an overall sum. I have knocked off an hour.
84. MR JUSS: I was going to say, my Lord, attendance at the hearing 5 hours.
85. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I have knocked off a hour.
86. MR JUSS: Your Lordship is entirely right, the key document is the planning decision.
87. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: I have halved the seven hours and I have more than halved the 12 hours to reach that figure. Do you think you can do better than that? Frankly, for a one day hearing in the High Court, having regard, I am afraid, to the costs £5,000 is not that huge, I appreciate your clients have you to pay for as well.
88. MR JUSS: So be it.
89. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: All right, I think that that is a reasonable sum.
90. MR JUSS: My Lord, I have a couple of applications. One is an application for permission to appeal.
91. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: No, there is nothing new in this. Frankly, you would be throwing good money after bad.
92. MR JUSS: The second is in the light of your very fulsome document whether the transcript could be released.
93. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Of course. You can get a transcript when it is corrected. It will be on the court website once it has been corrected, it will probably now be beginning of next term I suspect but it may be by the end of this year. Certainly yes, it is a judgment you will be able to get in due course. If you want to appeal you will have to apply of course.
94. MR MOFFAT: My Lord, just one procedural matter. I just want to clarify exactly who the costs order is being made against.
95. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: It is the claimant. I have not actually gone into this, but I understand (inaudible) is a representative of the --
96. MR JUSS: The costs order will be against the mosque itself.
97. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: Which is a legal entity, I take it?
98. MR JUSS: Yes.
99. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: What sort of entity is it?
100. MR JUSS: It is a charitable trust.
101. MR JUSTICE COLLINS: If there is any difficulty, Mr Moffat, you will be able to come back to court to resolve it. I leave that open. If there is any problem of identifying the precise person you can always come back to court.
102. Thank you both.