Residents lose football stand case

Construction of the north stand could reach £2.7m

A judge has rejected claims by residents living near a Premiership football club that building work on a £2.7m stand started without them being consulted.

At the High Court it was claimed that people living close to Ipswich Town's Portman Road ground would be robbed of light and face extra nuisance from fans because of the new north stand.

The project will mean an increase in capacity at the ground of nearly 4,000.

But the judge, Mr Justice Sullivan, described the scheme as "relatively modest".

There is an element of David and Goliath here. I am satisfied Goliath can have its new stand, but not its costs

Mr Justice Sullivan

Counsel for Rose Malster, who lives in Alderman Road, Ipswich, claimed the local authority failed to carry out a survey into the environmental impact of the project.

Eleanor Sharpston QC, said residents would also be affected by the increase in traffic following last season's Premiership success and the return to European football.

But the judge ruled that regulations governing environmental impact assessments were not designed to protect individual households.

He said the severe shadowing effect on a small number of properties was not sufficient to warrant such a study.

And he said that the lateness of Ms Malster's legal challenge would have caused substantial prejudice and costs to the club.

This is not an anti-football case. It is a case where we say that even in the Premiership one plays by the rules

Eleanor Sharpston QC

The court was told that Ipswich Borough Council acted contrary to its own development plan.

But the judge ruled there was no substance to Ms Malster's claim that she had been denied the right to a fair hearing by the authority.

Earlier, Ms Sharpston told the court: "This is not an anti-football case. It is a case where we say that even in the Premiership one plays by the rules"

Awarding costs in favour of the local authority, the judge said this could not be enforced without leave of the court.

And he refused a claim for costs from the club.

"There is an element of David and Goliath here. I am satisfied Goliath can have its new stand, but not its costs," he said.