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 warranting an environmental statement. They cannot conclude that there would be significant effects, save for the fact that they have required (or at least will require) the developer to take mitigating steps whose effect is to render such effects insignificant. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2, sets out the information required and requires that there is a description of the measures envisaged to ‘avoid, reduce and if possible remedy’ adverse effects. The purpose is to enable public discussion to take place about whether the measures will be successful, or perhaps whether more effective measures can be taken than those proposed to ameliorate the anticipated harm. The question whether there are likely to be significant environmental effects should be approached by asking whether these would be likely to result, absent some specific measures being taken to reduce them. If they would, the environmental statement is required and the mitigating measures must be identified in it. In this case there would be potentially highly significant effects on the archaeology, unless measures are directed to eliminate them. Accordingly, the officer erred in law in taking these measures into account when deciding that no significant effect was likely.


Elias J


[2001] EWHC Admin 1001, [2002] JPL 993




England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBellway Urban Renewal Southern v Gillespie CA 27-Mar-2003
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 . .
CitedYounger 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 . .
CitedOxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council, Catherine Mary Robinson ChD 22-Jan-2004
Land had been registered in part as a common. The council appealed.
Held: The rights pre-existing the Act had not been lost. The presumption against retrospectively disapplying vested rights applied, and the application had properly been made. . .
CitedNunn, Regina (on the Application of) v First Secretary of State and others CA 8-Feb-2005
The operator sought permission to erect a mobile phone mast. The authority failed to serve notice of the decision to refuse prior approval. The applicant wished to object.
Held: The applicant had been deprived of her right to make objection to . .
CitedChampion, 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: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167275