The applicant appealed against a decision for development granted in the absence of its own decision. The judge had quashed the decision because of the absence of an environmental impact statement.
Held: When making the screening decision, it cannot be assumed that at each stage a favourable and satisfactory result will be achieved. There will be cases in which the uncertainties are such that a decision that a project is unlikely to have significant effects on the environment could not properly be reached. The test applied was not the correct one. The error was in the assumption that the investigations and works contemplated could be treated, at the time of the screening decision, as having had a successful outcome.
Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Laws And Lady Justice Arden DBE
 EWCA Civ 400, Times 07-Apr-2003, Gazette 10-Apr-2003,  JPL 1287,  2 P and CR 16,  Env LR 30,  3 PLR 20,  14 EG 123
England and Wales
Cited – Regina (on the application of Lebus) v South Cambridgeshire District Council QBD 27-Aug-2002
The applicant opposed permission for an egg-production unit, alleging that an environmental impact assessment was required. The regulations required a screening review to assess whether an assessment was required. There was no formal record of a . .
Cited – British Telecommunications Plc and Bloomsbury Land Investments v Gloucester City Council Admn 26-Nov-2001
The land site to be developed was of archaeological interest and the relevance of a mitigation strategy was considered.
Held: It is for the planning authority to decide whether there are likely to be significant effects on the environment . .
Appeal from – Gillespie v Secretary of State and Another Admn 20-Jan-2003
Cited – Jones, Regina (on the Application of) v Mansfield District Council and Another CA 16-Oct-2003
Plannning permission was sought. Objectors said that it would have such an impact that an environmental impact assessment was required. They now sought judicial review of the decision to proceed without one.
Held: The judge had explained the . .
Cited – Younger Homes (Northern) Ltd v First Secretary of State and Another Admn 26-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to quash a planning decision on the basis that a screening decision had not been made.
Held: Though the procedures within the authority could have been bettered, there was no formal requirement for a screening option to . .
Cited – Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180124