There is no obligation to refer every application to the Secretary of State where an objector raised a plausible argument that an environmental impact assessment might be needed. In this case the application did not fall within Schedule I, and nor was it in a sensitive area, and nor was it over 0.5 hectares, and it was not open to the inspector to conclude that it might require an assessment. Regulation 9(2) did not require a reference whenever a plausible argument was raised that an assessment might be required. The 1999 Regulations did comply with the appropriate European Directives and jurisprudence.
courtcommentary.com Desiderata in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 for separating major impact applications (‘EIA applications’) from those giving rise only to a lesser impact
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, Lord Justice Kay
Gazette 26-Jul-2001, Times 19-Oct-2001,  EWCA Civ 1012
England and Wales
Leave Appelication – Robert and Sonia Burkett, Application for Permission To Apply for Judicial Review CA 13-Dec-2000
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 . .
Appeal heard – Robert and Sonia Burkett, Application for Permission To Apply for Judicial Review CA 13-Dec-2000
Cited – Richardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Environment, Planning
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160057