Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Limited v National Rivers Authority (Now, Environment Agency): Admn 11 Dec 1996

Citations:

[1996] EWHC Admin 345

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Water Resources Act 1991 85(1)

Cited by:

Appeal fromEmpress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority HL 22-Jan-1998
A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136893

Berkeley v Secretary of State For The Environment and Others: HL 11 May 2000

The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for a new football ground for Fulham Football club, saying that an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been obtained, but was required.
Held: Where a planning application if completed would have a substantial effect on the environment, and an environmental impact assessment should have been first obtained, it was not possible to dispense with that assessment and to deem it to have been supplied where it was thought that the assessment would make no difference, or that the authority or secretary of state in fact had all the information which would have been provided. The Directive prescribed a particular procedure which was to be followed. In the absence of at least substantial compliance, the court should not exercise its discretion to validate retrospectively a breach of the Directive, even if satisfied that the result would have been the same.
Lord Bingham set out the Court’s discretion: ‘Even in a purely domestic context, the discretion of the court to do other than quash the relevant order or action where such excessive exercise of power is shown is very narrow. In the Community context, unless a violation is so negligible as to be truly de minimis and the prescribed procedure has in all essentials been followed, the discretion (if any exists) is narrower still: the duty laid on member states by article 10 of the EC Treaty, the obligation of national courts to ensure that Community rights are fully and effectively enforced, the strict conditions attached by article 2(3) of the Directive to exercise of the power to exempt and the absence of any power in the Secretary of State to waive compliance (otherwise than by way of exemption) with the requirements of the Regulations in the case of any urban development project which in his opinion would be likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of the factors mentioned, all point towards an order to quash as the proper response to a contravention such as admittedly occurred in this case.’
Lord Hoffmann said: ‘A court is therefore not entitled retrospectively to dispense with the requirement of an EIA on the ground that the outcome would have been the same or that the local planning authority or Secretary of State had all the information necessary to enable them to reach a proper decision on the environmental issues. Although section 288(5)(b), in providing that the court ‘may’ quash an ultra vires planning decision, clearly confers a discretion upon the court, I doubt whether, consistently with its obligations under European law, the court may exercise that discretion to uphold a planning permission which has been granted contrary to the provisions of the Directive. To do so would seem to conflict with the duty of the court under article 10 (ex article 5) of the EC Treaty to ensure fulfilment of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Treaty. In classifying a failure to conduct a requisite EIA for the purposes of section 288 as not merely non-compliance with a relevant requirement but as rendering the grant of permission ultra vires, the legislature was intending to confine any discretion within the narrowest possible bounds. It is exceptional even in domestic law for a court to exercise its discretion not to quash a decision which has been found to be ultra vires: see Glidewell LJ in Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1990) 61 P and CR 343, 353. [Counsel for the Respondent] was in my opinion right to concede that nothing less than substantial compliance with the Directive could enable the planning permission in this case to be upheld.’

Judges:

Lord Hoffmann, Lord Bingham

Citations:

Times 07-Jul-2000, [2000] 3 WLR 420, [2001] 2 AC 603, [2000] UKHL 36, [2000] 3 All ER 897

Links:

House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 85/337/EEC, Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (1988 No 1199), Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At First InstanceDido Berkeley v Secretary of State for Environment Admn 26-Mar-1997
. .

Cited by:

CitedBarker v London Borough of Bromley Admn 23-Nov-2001
The claimant challenged the grant of outline permission to develop the Crystal Palace, arguing that no Environmental Assessment had taken place. The need for one depended upon whether the directive had been properly incorporated into English Law. . .
CitedBown v Secretary of State for Transport CA 31-Jul-2003
The appeal concerned the environmental effect of the erection of a bridge being part of a bypass. It was claimed that the area should have been designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA), and that if so it should be treated as such for . .
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 . .
CitedPascoe v First Secretary of State and others Admn 27-Sep-2006
The claimant challenged a compulsory purchase order made under the 1993 Act on the grounds of underuse of properties in the area.
Held: The respondent’s decision had been made on the basis that there was underuse of a ‘predominant number’ of . .
CitedRegina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex Parte Milne (2) QBD 31-Jul-2000
Developers submitted applications for outline permission for the development of a business park. The applicant sought to quash the grant on the basis that the environmental assessment was insufficiently detailed, and contained reserved matters, and . .
CitedEdwards, Regina (on the application of) v Environment Agency HL 16-Apr-2008
The applicants sought to challenge the grant of a permit by the defendant to a company to operate a cement works, saying that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate.
Held: The Agency had been justified in allowing the application . .
CitedBoggis and Another v Natural England CA 20-Oct-2009
Natural England appealed against the quashing of an SSSI.
Held: The notification of an SSSI was not the making of a plan as respects the land affected, but the flagging up of it. The real purpose of the proceedings was to allow the land owners . .
CitedWalton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
CitedBaker v Police Appeals Tribunal Admn 27-Mar-2013
The claimant a former police constable sought judicial review of a decision made by the tribunal, saying that it had had no jurisdiction to make it. The respondent tribunal, having now accepted that it had not had the power it exercised, being then . .
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 . .
CitedDover District Council v CPRE Kent SC 6-Dec-2017
‘When a local planning authority against the advice of its own professional advisers grants permission for a controversial development, what legal duty, if any, does it have to state the reasons for its decision, and in how much detail? Is such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Planning, Administrative

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135054

Commission v Germany (Rec 1991,P I-825) (Judgment): ECJ 28 Feb 1991

Europa Measures adopted by the Community institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States – Implementation of a directive without legislative action – Conditions – Existence of a general legal context which guarantees full application of the directive – Mere administrative practices inadequate. Approximation of laws – Protection of groundwater – Directive 80/68 – Need for precise transposition by the Member States. Measures adopted by the institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States – Reliance on measures adopted by regional or local authorities – Permissibility – Limits.

Citations:

C-131/88, [1991] EUECJ C-131/88, [1991 ECR 1-825

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedVibixa Ltd, Polestar Jowetts Ltd v Komori UK Ltd and Another, Spectral Technology Ltd CA 9-May-2006
The claimants sought damages for damage to property alleging breach of statutory duty. The defendant said that the regulations were made under European not English law, and that the Secretary of State did not have power to make regulations under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Environment

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.134871

Bund Fur Umwelt Und Naturschutz Deutschland eV v Bundesrepublik Deutschland: ECJ 1 Jul 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – EU action in the field of water policy – Directive 2000/60/EC – Article 4(1) – Environmental objectives relating to surface waters – Deterioration of the status of a body of surface water – Project for the development of a navigable waterway – Obligation of the Member States not to authorise a project that may cause a deterioration of the status of a body of surface water – Decisive criteria for determining whether there is a deterioration of the status of a body of water

Judges:

V. Skouris, P

Citations:

C-461/13, [2015] EUECJ C-461/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:433

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2000/60/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.549987

Ministere public v Oscar Traen and others: ECJ 12 May 1987

Articles 8 to 12 of Directive 75/442 on waste cover all waste-disposal activities and do not impose any limitation relating to the legal status of the operator or the frequency or purpose of the activities concerned. Article 5 of the directive does not lay down any restrictive criteria concerning the ‘competent … Authorities to be responsible, in a given zone, for the planning, organization, authorization and supervision of waste-disposal operations’ which are to be established or designated by the member states and the latter are therefore unrestricted in their choice of such authorities. The permit provided for in article 8 of the directive is issued by those authorities and cannot be replaced by the consent of the owner or occupier of the land where the waste is discharged . An owner or occupier of land, as an operator tipping his own waste on that land, does not need a permit under article 8 but a measure subjecting him to such a requirement may be adopted as one of the necessary measures to be taken by the member states under article 4 of the directive. Subject to the usual limitations on the exercise of a discretionary power, the power enjoyed by the member states regarding organization of the supervision provided for in article 10 of the directive is qualified only by the requirement that the objectives of that directive, namely protection of human health and of the environment, must be complied with. A directive may not of itself impose obligations on an individual and a provision of a directive may not therefore be relied upon as such against such a person .

Citations:

C-372/85, R-374/85, [1987] EUECJ R-374/85, [1987] ECR 2141

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedDerbyshire Waste Ltd v Blewett and Another CA 11-Nov-2004
Glapswell Colliery had closed. The owners sought to use it for waste disposal by landfill. The objector had obtained judicial review of the permission granted.
Held: The intention of the Landfill Directive was to discourage its use other than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Crime, Environment

Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.134282

Dewan v The Fife Council: SCS 22 Jan 2019

The pursuer had let land to a company to a waste management. The defenders were responsible for licensing their activities. The land was mismanaged, and the pursuer now sought damages from the Council as to the cost of remediation of the land.

Citations:

[2019] ScotCS CSOH – 5

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

The Waste Management
Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Landlord and Tenant, Environment

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.634474

Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Regina (on the Application Of) v Water Services Regulation Authority: QBD 28 Jul 2008

Whether escapes of waste water from a public sewerage system are ‘Directive waste’ within the scope of the Waste Framework Directive, and thus subject to the enforcement authority of the Environment Agency under section 33 of the 1990 Act.
Held: Sewage which escaped from a public sewer was controlled waste.

Judges:

Lord Justice Carnwarth and Mr Justice Bean

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1763 (QB), Times 28-Aug-2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 33, Council Directive 75/442/EEC of July 15, 1975 on waste

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.271314

United Utilities Water Plc v The Environment Agency for England and Wales: QBD 13 Jan 2006

Judges:

Nelson J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 9 (QB), [2006] Env LR 32

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Water Industry Act 1991, Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromUnited Utilities Water Plc v Environment Agency for England and Wales CA 19-May-2006
. .
At First InstanceUnited Utilities Water Plc v Environment Agency for England and Wales HL 17-Oct-2007
The company appealed a finding that it could not process non-hazardous waste waste at one licensed site and move it to another for disposal.
Held: The treatment must form part of a process which results in a discarded rather than a recovered . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Utilities

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.238317

Safety H-Tech Srl v S and T Srl: ECJ 22 Jul 1998

Use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons was properly banned for all purposes including fire fighting ones, and no sufficient reason for any exemption had been shown.

Citations:

Times 22-Jul-1998, C-284/95, [1998] EUECJ C-284/95

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council regulation EC 3093/94 Substance depleting the Ozone Layer

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.88975

Regina v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Bray: QBD 13 Apr 1999

A bylaw, restricting fishing by reference to the size of the ship, was valid. The words must not be construed out of context of the whole Act, and in this case an ‘instrument’ used for fishing did not include the vessel itself.

Citations:

Gazette 21-Apr-1999, Times 13-Apr-1999, [1999] EWHC Admin 252

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966

Environment, Agriculture

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87363

Regina (On the Application of Lowther) v Durham County Council and Another: CA 24 May 2001

The landowner sought to alter the fuel it used in a furnace at Thrislington, Durham, to a fuel which was constituted from waste. The council received a second opinion to the effect that the new fuel did not constitute a change in use. The objector appealed.
Held: The council had been properly advised. The fact that a use of material had additional purposes, did not necessarily create a second use for planning permission. It could, but whether it did was a question of fact and degree for the council sub-committee.
Lord Phillips MR referred to the caselaw and said: ‘West Bowers involved deciding whether a particular operation fell into one or both of two specific categories of operation. On the facts the Court of Appeal held that it fell into both. There is no difficulty in following the logic of this conclusion. The facts were such that an objective onlooker when asked what the operation involved might have said ‘digging a reservoir’ or ‘recovering gravel’ or both. The operation had two physical aspects the one the corollary of the other; a hole was dug; gravel was removed. Each aspect fell into a different planning category.
West Bowers recognised that one indivisible process could amount, for planning purposes, to two activities. It does not follow that the different aspects of a process always fall to be categorised as different operations or uses of land for planning purposes. Lord Kingsland did not suggest that disposing of petcoke was a distinct use of the land at Thrislington, although petcoke is a by-product of the oil industry that has all the features of waste, save that its qualities as a source of energy have become appreciated so that it is universally burnt for energy recovery. Lord Kingsland’s contention that disposing of waste is always a separate land use, regardless of the nature or manner of disposal, cannot be derived from West Bowers.’

Judges:

Lord Phillips MR

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jun-2001, Times 22-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 781, [2002] 1 PandCR 283

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ConsideredWest Bowers Farm Products v Essex County Council CA 1985
Farmers sought to construct a reservoir for irrigation. To create the reservoir they would have to excavate substantial volumes of sand and gravel which would be sold on. The appellants contended that the extraction of the sand and gravel was an . .

Cited by:

CitedRoberts and Another v South Gloucestershire Council CA 7-Nov-2002
The landowner appealed against the compensation awarded for the compulsory acquisition of his land for use as a road. The owners had been compensated only for its agricultural value, but said that it should have allowed for its value for minerals . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85994

Regina v Hertfordshire County Council ex parte Green Environmental Industries Limited, Moynihan: CA 9 Oct 1997

There was no protection against self-incrimination where information was properly required by the Waste Regulation Authority to carry out its duties.

Citations:

Times 09-Oct-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2279

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 71(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedC Plc and W v P and Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Attorney General ChD 26-May-2006
The claimant sought damages from the first defendant for breach of copyright. An ex parte search order had been executed, with the defendant asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. As computer disks were examined, potentially unlawful . .
Appeal fromRegina v Hertfordshire County Council, ex parte Green Environmental Industries Ltd and Another HL 17-Feb-2000
A notice was given to the holder of a waste disposal licence to require certain information to be provided on pain of prosecution. The provision of such information could also then be evidence against the provider of the commission of a criminal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81908

Griffiths v Pembrokeshire County Council: QBD 19 Apr 2000

A smoke nuisance can be established on the basis of the smell of smoke alone. It was not necessary to establish the presence of visible smoke. Smoke primarily means visible smoke, but even in common parlance can include the smell. The statutory definition included soot, ash, grit and gritty particles. The smell related to the detection of smoke which constituted the offence.

Judges:

Kennedy LJ, Butterfield J

Citations:

Gazette 05-May-2000, Times 19-Apr-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 319

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 79(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, Nuisance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81047

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Linster and Others: ECJ 19 Sep 2000

Where a road or other development project would have a substantial impact on the environment, a law passed by a member state authorising the construction to proceed but which was in the absence of an impact assessment, was not in compliance with the Directive. It was not possible to bypass the procedure by use of special statutory powers. The Directive did not apply where its purposes were satisfied by a statutory process, but that implied the need for that process to produce a similar investigation.

Citations:

Times 05-Oct-2000, [2000] ECR I-6917, [2000] EUECJ C-287/98

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedHS2 Action Alliance Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport and Another SC 22-Jan-2014
The government planned to promote a large scale rail development (HS2), announcing this in a command paper. The main issues, in summary, were, first, whether it should have been preceded by strategic environmental assessment, under the relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Transport

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80973

EC Commission v Hellenic Republic: ECJ 9 Sep 1998

The court emphasised the need for the member states to implement the Directive to reduce pollution from the listed substances. States should also state how they intended to test the implementation and also the time scale for implementation

Citations:

Gazette 09-Sep-1998, Ecj/Cfi Bulletin 15/98, 14, C-232/95, [1998] EUECJ C-232/95

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 76/464/EEC

Environment, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80243

Commission of the European Communities (Supported by the United Kingdom) v Hellenic Republic: ECJ 7 Jul 2000

When assessing the penalty to be imposed on a member state for failing to comply with a judgement of the court the court had to look at the duration of the breach, its seriousness, and its ability to pay. Here a fine of 20.000 Euros per day was imposed upon Greece for failing to control discharges into the sea in breach of court orders over several years.
The court described a waste management plan within the meaning of Article 7 of the Directive as ‘a comprehensive programme with a view to attaining certain objectives’.

Citations:

Times 07-Jul-2000, C-387/97, [2000] ECR I-5047, [2000] EUECJ C-387/97

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Daventry District Council ex parte Thornby Farms Admn 28-Jul-2000
The council granted licences for the disposal of waste animal carcasses by incineration. The objectors said the council had failed to take note of art 4 of the directive, and that as clinical waste alternative regimes applied.
Held: Animal . .
CitedDerbyshire Waste Ltd v Blewett and Another CA 11-Nov-2004
Glapswell Colliery had closed. The owners sought to use it for waste disposal by landfill. The objector had obtained judicial review of the permission granted.
Held: The intention of the Landfill Directive was to discourage its use other than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Environment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79301

Carr v Hackney London Borough Council: QBD 9 Mar 1995

The council tenant plaintiff alleged a statutory nuisance against the council in the form of condensation, damp and mould in his flat. When it came to the hearing the damp had abated. The magistrates asked whether it was likely to recur. The council replied that they had offered to install heaters in the property which would deal with the problem, but the plantiff had refused saying that gas-central heating would be cheaper. They therefore said that responsibility for any recurrence would lie with the tenant. The tenant appealed saying that the defence allowed, that the council was ‘not the person whose act or default or sufferance gave rise to the nuisance or its continuance.
Held: The tenant’s appeal failed. A defendant can avoid liability for a nuisance by pointing out the genuine originator of the nuisance.

Judges:

McKinnon J

Citations:

Times 09-Mar-1995, (1996) 28 HLR 747

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 82, Public Health Act 1936

Citing:

CitedWarner v Lambeth London Borough Council QBD 26-Mar-1984
A complaint of statutory nuisance laid before the magistrates must contain even if in summary form, similar details as would appear in an abatement notice, including the capacity in which the defendant is served and the steps required to be taken to . .

Cited by:

MentionedRobb v Dundee City Council SCS 13-Feb-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78913

Camden London Borough Council v London Underground Ltd: QBD 7 Jan 2000

The local authority served a noise nuisance abatement notice upon the respondents regarding their plant room. The notice required abatement and a non-repetition. The notice was not specific as to the works required to be undertaken. It was held that the notice was indeed insufficiently specific. Although it was possible to add to the notice specification requirements contained in an accompanying letter, it was advisable to lock the two together explicitly. The notice required works but did not specify what they were and was invalid.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jan-2000

Statutes:

Statutory Nuisance (Appeals) Regulations 1995, Environmental Protection Act 1990 80

Environment, Nuisance

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78852

Burgemeester En Wethouders Van Haarlemmerlied En Spaarnwoude v Gedeputerde Staten Van Noord-Holland: ECJ 9 Sep 1998

Where a development which might have significant environmental impact was proposed it was necessary to ensure that an environmental impact assessment had been carried out. It was not open to member states to exempt some types of development.

Citations:

Gazette 09-Sep-1998, C-81/96, Wcj/Cfi Bulletin 16/98, 28

Statutes:

Council Directive 90/313/EEC Freedom of Access to information on the environment.

Environment, European, Planning

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78743

British Waterways Board v Severn Trent Water Ltd: CA 23 Mar 2001

The parties disputed discharges from a sewer outfall into the Stourbridge canal which had been constructed by a regional water authority in about 1976, under the previous statutory regime. The relevant outfall was therefore already in use at the transfer date pursuant to a right enjoyed by the regional water authorities under the Public Health Act 1936 and transferred to the privatised sewerage undertakers under the Water Act 1989. The powers given to sewerage undertakers did not include a power, either express or implied for a sewerage contractor to lay sewage outfall over land belonging to someone else without their consent. Express powers were given for certain acts including the laying of pipes, but not for discharges. This contrasted with express powers for water undertakers which did include outfalls. No implicit power could be inferred; this was neither necessary, and nor could sufficient precision be achieved.
The Water Industry Act had to be construed as a coherent scheme in its own right, without any a priori assumption that it was intended to reproduce everything in the previous statute law.
Chadwick LJ summarised the position: ‘The fallacy, as it seems to me, lies in the underlying (but unspoken) premise that Parliament must have intended that sewerage undertakers should have facilities to discharge (which, plainly, they do require in order to carry out their functions) without paying for those facilities. Whether or not that premise could have been supported in the context of a public authority charged with functions imposed in the interests of public health, it cannot be supported, as it seems to me, in the context of legislation enacted following a decision to privatise the water industry.’

Judges:

Peter Gibson, Chadwick, Keene LJJ

Citations:

Times 23-Mar-2001, Gazette 29-Mar-2001, Gazette 20-Apr-2001, [2001] 3 WLR 613, [2002] Ch 25, [2001] EWCA Civ 276, [2002] EHLR 1, [2001] 3 All ER 673, [2001] Env LR 45, [2001] NPC 53

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Water Industry Act 1991 159, Public Health Act 1936, Water Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBritish Waterways Board v Severn Trent Water Ltd ChD 26-Oct-1999
A water company may have the implied power to discharge surface run-off water from sewers into canals. The powers and duties of water companies and sewerage undertakers were different both under statute and in general. The power to lay a run-off . .

Cited by:

CitedThe Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd and Another v United Utilities Water Plc SC 2-Jul-2014
The court was asked: ‘whether a sewerage undertaker under the Water Industry Act 1991 has a statutory right to discharge surface water and treated effluent into private watercourses such as the Respondents’ canals without the consent of their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Utilities, Land

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78652

Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence: CA 16 Jun 1998

Contamination of land by the overflow of radioactive materials from a pond, led to damages for the cost of repair, and also the permanent diminution of the value in the land from physical damage.
Held: The Court dismissed the appeal of the defendants from the order of the trial judge (Carnwath J) awarding the plaintiffs damages for the breach of duty imposed by section 7(1)(a) of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 on the licensee of a nuclear site to ensure that no occurrence involving nuclear matter caused damage to any property of any person other than the licensee. Damage within the Act occurred if there was some alteration in the physical characteristics of the land caused by radioactive properties which rendered it less useful or less valuable. Aldous LJ said that the addition of plutonium to the topsoil rendered the characteristics of the marshland different and, further, that the result of the addition was that the marshland became less useful and less valuable. The plaintiffs’ land was less valuable because the estate was unsaleable until the contaminated soil had been removed and less useful because the level of contamination was such that the topsoil of the marsh had to be excavated and removed from the site because the level of radioactivity exceeded that which was allowed by the regulations. In short, the cause of action arose because the amenity or utility of the plaintiffs’ land was impaired by contamination from the plutonium.

Judges:

Simon Brown, Aldous, Chadwick LJJ

Citations:

Times 16-Jun-1998, Gazette 22-Jul-1998, [1998] EWCA Civ 945, [1999] 2 WLR 295, [1999] Ch 289, [1998] 3 All ER 385, [1998] EGCS 93, [1999] Env LR 22

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Nuclear Installations Act 1965 7(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromBlue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence ChD 11-Dec-1996
Damages for escape of nuclear waste to include diminution of land value. Radioactive pollution of land following such an overflow is physical damage. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toBlue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence ChD 11-Dec-1996
Damages for escape of nuclear waste to include diminution of land value. Radioactive pollution of land following such an overflow is physical damage. . .
CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
CitedNetwork Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams and Another CA 3-Jul-2018
Japanese Knotweed escape is nuisance
The defendant appealed against an order as to its liability in private nuisance for the escape of Japanese Knotweed from its land onto the land of the claimant neighbours. No physical damage to properties had yet been shown, but the reduction in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Nuisance

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78452

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 5 of 2000): CACD 6 Jun 2001

Waste products could become ‘controlled waste’ and subject to licensing procedures without there being a recovery or disposal operation being involved. A rendering process produced a condensate which the company wished to spread on farm land without a licence. The company had argued that no recovery process was involved, and therefore it was not waste within the definition. The Agency appealed.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The judgement of Carnwath in Mayer Parry appeared to be incorrect. Whether material was required to be controlled could not depend upon the manner in which a particular holder of it intended to store it. It must depend upon the nature of the material itself. The court declined to attempt to define ‘waste’, but confirmed that ‘recovery or disposal operations are not required before a substance can be ‘controlled waste’.’

Judges:

Lord Woolf CJ, Douglas Brown, Astill JJ

Citations:

Times 06-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Crim 1077

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Criminal Justice Act 1972 36, Environmental Protection Act 1990 33 34(1)(a), Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, Council Directive 75/442/EEC

Citing:

Per incuriamRegina v Environment Agency ex parte Dockgrange Limited and Mayer Parry Limited Admn 22-May-1997
The verb ‘discard’ in the Waste Framework Directive has a special and limited meaning which requires the materials to be subjected to a disposal or recovery operation.
Carnwath J said: ‘The general concept is now reasonably clear. The term . .
CitedCastle Cement v Environment Agency Admn 22-Mar-2001
The court was asked ‘whether the burning of Cemfuel, as a fuel in the Ribblesdale and Ketton Cement Works operated by the Applicant (Castle), amounts to the burning of ‘hazardous waste’, as the Environment Agency has concluded, or to the burning of . .
CitedEuro Tombesi, Santella etc ECJ 25-Jun-1997
ECJ (Environment And Consumers) Waste – Definition – Council Directives 91/156/EEC and 91/689/EEC – Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 . .
CitedInter-Environnement Wallonie v Region Wallonne ECJ 18-Dec-1997
ECJ Member States are required to refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the results prescribed by a Directive, even though the date for its implementation has not yet expired.
The . .
CitedArco Chemie Nederland v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening in Milieubeheer ECJ 15-Jun-2000
ECJ Environment – Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC – Concept of ‘waste’.
Advocate General Alber said: ‘The concept of waste underlying Community law on waste is defined in article 1(a) of Directive . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Licensing, Crime

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78014

Saddleworth Urban District Council v Aggregate and Sand Ltd: 1970

Citations:

(1970) 69 LGR 103

Statutes:

Public Health Act 1936, Noise Abatement Act 1960

Cited by:

CitedManley and Another v New Forest District Council Admn 6-Nov-2007
The defendants appealed by way of case stated against their convictions for noise nuisance for their husky kennels – ‘Howling Dog Kennels’. They said that it was impractical, both for animal welfare and cost reasons further to limit the noise.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Environment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.271240

Price v Cromack: 1975

The defendant maintained two lagoons on his land into which, pursuant to an agreement, the owners of adjoining land discharged effluent. The lagoons developed leaks which allowed the effluent to escape into the river.
Held: The escape had not been caused by anything which the defendant had done. There was no ‘positive act’ on his part. The effluent came onto the land by gravity and found its way into the stream by gravity ‘with no act on his part whatever:’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ

Citations:

[1975] 1 WLR 988, [1975] 2 All ER 113

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

DisapprovedEmpress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority HL 22-Jan-1998
A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . .
Restricted to its factsNational Rivers Authority v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd HL 21-Nov-1994
The defendant sewerage undertaker received sewage, treated it in filter beds and discharged the treated liquid into the river. One night someone unlawfully discharged a solvent called iso-octanol into the sewer. It passed through the sewage works . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.190103

Welsh Water Authority v Williams Motors (Cwmdu) Ltd: QBD 1 Dec 1988

Oil was supplied to Williams Motors by Autobrec Oils and there was spillage from an offset fuel pipe out of sight of the delivery driver. Some of the spilt oil got into the storm drainage, and thus into a canal. Williams Motors were charged under section 32(1)(a) with causing or knowingly permitting the discharge into relevant waters. The magistrates were not satisfied that they had caused the pollution.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal failed. Lloyd LJ said: ‘The question is not what was foreseeable by the respondents or anyone else: the question is whether any act on the part of the respondents caused the pollution.’

Judges:

Lloyd LJ

Citations:

Times 05-Dec-1988

Statutes:

Control of Pollution Act 1974 32(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

AppliedAlphacell Ltd v Woodward HL 3-May-1972
The defendant operated a paper manufacturing plant which involved maintaining tanks of polluting liquid near the river, so that pollution would occur if they overflowed. There were pumps which ought normally to have drawn off the liquid and . .

Cited by:

ApprovedNational Rivers Authority v Wright Engineering Co Ltd QBD 19-Nov-1993
Escape following vandalism was not ’caused’ by the company. It was not foreseeable. Although there had been past incidents of vandalism at the defendant’s premises, ‘the vandalism involved was not reasonably foreseeable because it was out of all . .
CitedEmpress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority HL 22-Jan-1998
A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . .
CitedExpress Ltd v The Environment Agency QBD 15-Jul-2004
The dairy appealed its conviction for allowing cream to enter a brook from the land of its customer.
Held: Polluting matter did not need to be itself noxious or poisonous, it was enough that it stained or tinted the water as did cream. Though . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.190107

Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Ex Parte Duddridge and Others: QBD 4 Oct 1994

Secretary of State was under no duty to issue regulations to protect against low level electromagnetic radiation.

Citations:

Independent 04-Oct-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toRegina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Ex Parte Duddridge and Others CA 20-Oct-1995
The Maastricht environmental commitment imposed no binding obligation on a government of itself. The unproven possibility of a medical effect of radiation from power supply lines was no justification for new rules. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Ex Parte Duddridge and Others CA 20-Oct-1995
The Maastricht environmental commitment imposed no binding obligation on a government of itself. The unproven possibility of a medical effect of radiation from power supply lines was no justification for new rules. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Environment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87952

Regina v Secretary of State for Transport Ex Parte Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council and Others: QBD 21 Mar 1996

An order restricting the number of night flights but without apportioning those numbers between different categories was valid.

Citations:

Gazette 17-Apr-1996, Times 21-Mar-1996

Statutes:

Civil Aviation Act 1982

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Environment

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87961

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Ray: ChD 14 Jun 2000

The decision to refuse a retrospective licence for the importation of antique ivory, was one for the Department of Environment Transport and the Regions, and not one for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. An appeal against a refusal could not therefore lie to the VAT Tribunal, even though they had been seized by the Commissioners.

Citations:

Times 14-Jun-2000, Gazette 22-Jun-2000

Statutes:

Commission Regulation EC/939/97 (OJ 1997 LI40/9) Art 8(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, Administrative, Customs and Excise

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79395

British Waterways Board v Severn Trent Water Ltd: ChD 26 Oct 1999

A water company may have the implied power to discharge surface run-off water from sewers into canals. The powers and duties of water companies and sewerage undertakers were different both under statute and in general. The power to lay a run-off pipe might be held to imply a power to discharge what was run off through it.

Citations:

Times 26-Oct-1999, Gazette 03-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Water Industry Act 1991 159

Cited by:

Appeal fromBritish Waterways Board v Severn Trent Water Ltd CA 23-Mar-2001
The parties disputed discharges from a sewer outfall into the Stourbridge canal which had been constructed by a regional water authority in about 1976, under the previous statutory regime. The relevant outfall was therefore already in use at the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.78654

Airdrie Magistrates v Lanark County Council: 1910

Lord Loreburn LC said: ‘But what the appellants say is this: Permit us to prove that these burns are sewers, and if we can prove that they are sewers, surely it cannot be an offence to pour sewage matter into the sewers. My Lords, that is merely asking leave to prove that they have . . committed in an aggravated degree the very offence with which they are charged.’

Judges:

Lord Loreburn LC

Citations:

[1910] AC 286

Statutes:

Rivers Pollution Prevention Act 1876 3

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

AppliedGeorge Legge and Son Ltd v Wenlock Corporation HL 1938
The question was whether the status of a natural stream could be changed to that of a sewer by the unlawful discharge for a long period of sewage into the stream. The claimant asserted that a right by way of an easement could be acquired despite the . .
CitedBakewell Management Limited v Brandwood and others HL 1-Apr-2004
Houses were built next to a common. Over many years the owners had driven over the common. The landowners appealed a decision that they could not acquire a right of way by prescription over the common because such use had been unlawful as a criminal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Environment, Limitation, Scotland

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.195479

Regina v Nature Conservancy Council ex parte London Brick Property Ltd: 1996

Citations:

[1996] Env LR 1

Statutes:

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 28(1)

Cited by:

CitedFisher and Another v English Nature Admn 4-Jul-2003
The claimants were trustees of land. The Respondent had notified the Secretary of State that they considered that part of the land satisfied the criteria to be certifed as being of special scientific interest. They now intended to confirm the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.186085

Leeds City Council v Spencer: CA 6 May 1999

The defendant appealed against an order refusing to set aside an enforcement notice served by the council for his failure to destroy rats and mice on his land.
Held: A local authority had a statutory duty to collect waste, and could not therefore serve a notice, requiring a landowner to clear his land of rubbish, and to remove rats and mice which had gathered. That duty was its own, and could not be moved onto others.

Citations:

Times 24-May-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1351

Statutes:

Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949, Environmental Protection Act 1990

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Local Government, Animals, Environment

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.146266

Impress (Worcester) Ltd v Rees: QBD 1971

The appellants kept a fuel oil storage tank with an unlocked valve in their yard near the river. An unauthorised person entered during the night and opened the valve. The justices convicted.
Held: The appeal was allowed. ‘On general principles of causation, the question which the justices ought to have asked themselves was whether that intervening cause was of so powerful a nature that the conduct of the appellants was not a cause at all but was merely part of the surrounding circumstances.’ The answer was that ‘it was not the conduct of the appellants but the intervening act of the unauthorised person which caused the oil to enter the river.’

Judges:

Cooke J

Citations:

[1971] 2 All ER 357

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Wrongly decidedEmpress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority HL 22-Jan-1998
A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that . .
ExplainedAlphacell Ltd v Woodward HL 3-May-1972
The defendant operated a paper manufacturing plant which involved maintaining tanks of polluting liquid near the river, so that pollution would occur if they overflowed. There were pumps which ought normally to have drawn off the liquid and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.190106

Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Another, ex parte Marson: CA 18 May 1998

The Secretary of State need not give any reasons for his decision not to require an environmental impact assessment for a development.

Citations:

Times 18-May-1998

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (1988 No 1199)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.87810

Regina v Durham County Council and Others Ex Parte Huddleston: CA 15 Mar 2000

A quarry owner had allowed his mineral extraction licence to lapse, and sought to renew the permission. The authority failed to issue a decision within the appropriate time period, and a deemed permission was granted. The UK system appeared not to require an environmental impact assessment to be made before such a grant, in breach of European law. It was held that under such circumstances, a private individual deprived of his rights under European law, should be allowed to challenge the deemed permission. The directive had direct effect.

Citations:

Times 15-Mar-2000, Gazette 30-Mar-2000, [2000] 1 WLR 1484

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoRegina v Durham County Council Sherburn Stone Company Limited Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions ex parte Rodney Huddleston CA 15-Feb-1999
. .
See AlsoRegina v Durham County Council Sherburn Stone Company Limited ex parte Huddlestone Admn 28-Jul-1999
. .
See AlsoRegina v Durham County Council ex parte Rodney Huddleston Admn 17-Aug-1999
Variation of interim injunction to allow works preparatory to development pending appeal against refusal of planning permission. . .
Appeal fromRegina v Durham County Council Ex Parte Huddleston QBD 28-Jan-2000
A quarry owner had allowed his mineral extraction licence to lapse, and sought to renew the permission. The authority failed to issue a decision within the appropriate time period, and a deemed permission was granted. It was held however that where . .

Cited by:

CitedFinn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes Council and MK Windfarm Ltd CA 10-Oct-2008
Judicial Review must be timely
The appellant challenged the grant of permission for a wind farm on neighbouring land. His application for judicial review had been rejected for delay and on the merits.
Held: The court repeated the requirement that an application must be both . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment, European

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85241

Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council Ex Parte Trustees of the Council for the Protection of Rural England: QBD 26 Oct 1999

The authority gave permission for a new shopping centre up to 600,000 sq ft as an urban project. The Trustees sought that the permission be set aside since the council had not undertaken an environmental impact assessment, and under the EC Treaty they had the right to make such a request. It was held that an individual could not seek to enforce a directive once it had been properly enshrined in a member state’s law. ‘ . . I accept that in exercising discretion with regard to costs . . I should seek to give effect to the overriding objective and should have particular regard to the need, so far as practicable, to ensure that the parties are on an equal footing and that the case is dealt with in a way which is proportionate to the financial position of each party. Those aspects of the overriding objective seem to me to be embedded in any event in the principles laid down in ex p CPAG.’

Judges:

Richards J

Citations:

Gazette 13-Jan-2000, CAT 26 October 1999

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (1988 No 1199)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThe Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, The Secretary of State for Defence (2) Admn 5-Dec-2002
The claimants intended to seek a judicial review requesting an interpretation of a resolution of the United Nations Security Council. They sought first, an order pre-emptively to limit their liability for costs.
Held: To make such a protective . .
CitedCorner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
CitedRegina v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Ex Parte Milne (2) QBD 31-Jul-2000
Developers submitted applications for outline permission for the development of a business park. The applicant sought to quash the grant on the basis that the environmental assessment was insufficiently detailed, and contained reserved matters, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Planning, European

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.85293

Official Receiver v Environment Agency: CA 5 Aug 1999

A waste management licence could constitute both property and onerous property for the purposes of the Insolvency Act. It could also be an interest incidental to the land to which it related. Because of this the liquidator of a waste management company could disclaim the licence without committing an offence under the Act.

Citations:

Times 05-Aug-1999

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 33 34, Insolvency Act 1986 178(3), 436

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, Insolvency

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.84428

Commission of the European Community v United Kingdom: ECJ 24 Aug 1993

The wording in the directive regarding the ‘traditional practice of bathing by large numbers’ is precise, and the UK must implement it.
Europa 1. Acts of the institutions – Directives – Implementation by the Member States – Information given to the Commission concerning planned measures – Obligation of the Commission to react within a specific period – None – Possibility of subsequently bringing proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations (EEC Treaty, Arts 5, 169 and 189, third para.) 2. Approximation of laws – Quality of bathing water – Directive 76/160 – Bathing waters – Definition – Areas specially equipped for bathing and supervised by lifeguards – included irrespective of the actual number of bathers (Council Directive 76/160, Art. 1(2)(a), second indent) 3. Approximation of laws – Quality of bathing water – Directive 76/160 – Implementation by the Member States – Obligation as to the result to be achieved (Council Directive 76/160)
1. A Member State which is bound to implement a directive is not entitled to draw the inference from the Commission’s initial failure to react to a communication addressed to it regarding the manner in which the Member State intended to implement the directive that the Commission, which was obliged by neither Article 5 of the Treaty nor the provisions of the directive to express a view within a given period, had approved the criteria notified. It is for the Commission to decide when it intends to formulate objections and there is nothing to prevent it subsequently bringing proceedings against the Member State for failure to fulfil obligations. 2. The definition of ‘bathing water’ within the meaning of the second indent of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 76/160 concerning the quality of bathing water must, in the light of the directive’ s underlying purpose as expressed in the recitals in the preamble thereto, be understood as encompassing at all events the waters of bathing resorts equipped with certain facilities, such as changing huts, toilets and markers indicating bathing areas, and supervised by lifeguards. 3. Directive 76/160 concerning the quality of bathing water, Article 4(1) of which imposes an obligation on Member States to take all the measures necessary to ensure that their bathing waters conform to the physical, chemical and microbiological values laid down by the directive within a period of ten years from its notification, requires Member States to take steps to ensure that the prescribed results are attained within the period laid down; apart from the derogations expressly provided for by the directive they may not rely on particular circumstances to justify a failure to fulfil that obligation.

Citations:

Independent 24-Aug-1993, C-56/90

Environment, European

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79309

Commission of the European Communities v Ireland: ECJ 19 Oct 1999

The Directive gave member states some discretion as to setting criteria to be fulfilled before a project could be said to have a substantial effect and so require an environmental assessment before being allowed to proceed. Nevertheless, it was not open to members to use a simple size measurement as such a criteria, since this made no allowance for the possible substantial effects of even small projects.

Citations:

Times 19-Oct-1999, C-392/96

Statutes:

Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment., EC Treaty Art 226

Environment, European

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79304

Aitken v South Hams District Council: HL 8 Jul 1994

A notice was served in 1983 under section 58 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 requiring the abatement of a noise nuisance. That section was repealed by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, with effect from 1st January 1991, and a new procedure for statutory nuisance was substituted. On 25th January 1992, an information was preferred alleging recurrence of a noise nuisance between August and October 1991, contrary to section 58 of the 1974 Act.
Held: A Noise abatement Notice remained valid as a basis for a prosecution even after the repeal of the section in Act under which it had been issued. The ability to enforce the obligation was preserved by section 16(1) of the Interpretation Act 1978.
The words ‘obligation’ and ‘liability’ embraced both civil and criminal obligation or liability: ‘ . . although the application of section 16(1)(d) is confined to the criminal field, I do not consider that this means that the words ‘obligation or liability’ referred to in section 16(1)(c) have to be regarded as being restricted to a civil obligation or liability. The words remain appropriate to cover an obligation or liability enforceable under the criminal law. While a ‘right’ and ‘privilege,’ which are also referred to in section 16(1)(c), have a distinctly civil flavour, this is not equally true of ‘obligation’ and ‘liability.’ It is perfectly possible for the same enactment to create an obligation or a liability which is both enforceable in a civil action, by a claim for damages, and by a criminal sanction. It would be strange if, in that situation, section 16(1) could preserve the obligation or liability so far as it was enforceable in a civil action, but not so far as it was enforceable in criminal proceedings. To my mind the important question is whether there is an obligation or liability rather than how that obligation or liability is enforced. The question of enforcement is dealt with in section 16(1)(e) and that provision clearly applies equally to civil and criminal enforcement.’

Citations:

Gazette 07-Oct-1994, Times 08-Jul-1994, Independent 13-Jul-1994, [1995] 1 AC 262

Statutes:

Control of Pollution Act 1974 58(1), Environmental Protection Act 1990

Cited by:

CitedTael One Partners Ltd v Morgan Stanley and Co International Plc SC 11-Mar-2015
This appeal raises a question of contractual interpretation. Its significance lies in the fact that the contractual condition in question forms part of the Loan Market Association standard terms and conditions for par trade transactions which are a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.77697

Edwards, Pallikaropoulos v The Environment Agency, The First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Cemex UK Cement Limited: CA 31 Jul 2006

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld The Hon Mrs Justice Maurice Kay Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 877

Statutes:

Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1973) 10

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromEdwards, Regina (on the application of) v Environment Agency HL 16-Apr-2008
The applicants sought to challenge the grant of a permit by the defendant to a company to operate a cement works, saying that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate.
Held: The Agency had been justified in allowing the application . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.244245

A Lambert Flat Management Ltd v Lomas: 1981

The court considered the relationship between the appeals procedure provided for by the regulations and the ‘reasonable excuse for non-compliance’ provisions in s.58(1)(4) of the statute.
Held: Skinner J said: ‘I prefer to look at the scheme laid down in this Act and its associated Regulations. A comprehensive right of appeal is given by s.58(3) which was not available under the Noise Abatement Act, 1960. Regulation 4(2) . . permits an appeal on the ground that the notice is not justified by the terms of the statute. In my judgment an excuse cannot be ‘reasonable’ under s.58(3) if it involves matters which could have been raised on appeal under s.58(3) unless such matters arose after the appeal was heard, or if there was no appeal after the time for appealing had expired.’
Lord Justice Ackner said: ‘. . can the defendant urge as a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the notice, that the same was invalid for one or more of the reasons provided by the regulations as permissible grounds of appeal? . . The answer to my mind is clearly in the negative. Not only is the right of appeal given by the statute but very detailed provisions have been made by the Regulations for the prosecution of such appeals. S.58(4) was not designed to give the recipient of the notice a choice of forum in which to mount his attack on the notice. It was designed to provide a defence to a criminal charge where he had some reasonable excuse, such as special difficulty in compliance with the notice. It does not provide an opportunity, when prosecuted, to challenge the correctness and justificiation of the notice where the defendant has not availed himself of this statutory opportunity to do so by way of appeal.’

Judges:

Justice Skinner and Lord Justice Ackner

Citations:

[1981] 1 WLR 898

Statutes:

Control of Pollution Act 1974 58

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedAMEC Building Limited and Squibb and Davies Limited v London Borough of Camden Admn 19-Jul-1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.227907

Djurgarden-Lilla Vartans Miljoskyddsforening v Stockholms kommun genom dess marknamnd: ECJ 15 Oct 2009

ECJ Directive 85/337/EEC – Public participation in environmental decision-making procedures – Right of access to a review procedure to challenge decisions authorising projects likely to have significant effects on the environment

Judges:

Bonichot P

Citations:

[2009] EUECJ C-263/08

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 85/337/EEC, Directive 2003/35/EC

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OpinionDjurgarden-Lilla Vartans Miljoskyddsforening v Stockholms kommun genom dess marknamnd ECJ 2-Jul-2009
ECJ Directive 85/337/EEC – Environmental impact assessment Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Access to justice – Whether non-governmental organisations for the protection of the environment have standing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.514938

Wright, Regina (on The Application of Wright) v Resilient Energy Severndale Ltd and Another: SC 20 Nov 2019

W challenged the grant of planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to allow erection of a wind turbine, saying that the authority had taken into account a promise by the land owner to run the scheme as a community development contributing funds locally, and that such was not capable of being a relevant matter.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The community benefits promised by Resilient Severndale did not satisfy the Newbury criteria and hence did not qualify as a material consideration within the meaning of that term in section 70(2) of the 1990 Act and section 38(6) of the 2004 Act.

Judges:

Lady Hale, President, Lord Reed, Deputy President, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Thomas

Citations:

[2019] UKSC 53, [2020] JPL 646, [2019] WLR(D) 649, [2019] 1 WLR 6562, [2020] 2 All ER 1, [2020] 1 P and CR 14, UKSC 2018/0007

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2019 Jul 22 am Video, SC 2019 Jul 22 pm Video, SC 2019 Jul 23 pm video

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 70(2), Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 38(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At AdmnWright, Regina (on The Application of) v Forest of Dean District Council and Another Admn 9-Jun-2016
The court was asked whether or not an element of the package of socio-economic benefits associated with a wind turbine development, in the form of a local community donation based on turnover generated by the wind turbine, amounts to a material . .
Appeal fromWright, Regina (on The Application of) v Forest of Dean District Council Resilient Energy Serverndale Ltd CA 14-Dec-2017
Permission for the change of use of land to allow erection of a wind turbine had been quashed on the basis that the LA had taken account of an irrelevant matter, namely the proposed financial contributions from the development to the local . .
CitedNewbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment HL 1981
The grant of a temporary planning permission did not operate to cancel an existing established use. A planning condition requiring removal of hangars was invalid because it did not fairly or reasonably relate to the permitted development. The grant . .
CitedWestminster City Council v Great Portland Estates plc HL 31-Oct-1984
The House was asked whether the 1971 Act permitted the relevant authorities, by resort to their development plans, to support the retention of traditional industries or was the ambit of the Act such as to permit only ‘land use’ aims to be pursued? . .
CitedRegina v Plymouth City Council, ex parte Plymouth and South Devon Co-operative Society CA 1993
A supermarket operator was seeking to overturn planning consents granted to two rivals, and argued that the section 106 agreements were not material considerations unless they passed the necessity test.
Held: It was sufficient, on the basis of . .
CitedSainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Wolverhampton City Council and Another SC 12-May-2010
The appellant’s land was to be taken under compulsory purchase by the Council who wished to use it to assist Tesco in the construction of a new supermarket. Tesco promised to help fund restoration of a local listed building. Sainsbury objected an . .
CitedTesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others HL 11-May-1995
Three companies had applied for permission to build retail food superstores in Witney. The Inspector had recommended Tesco’s proposal, but the respondent rejected it. Tesco’s had offered to provide by way of a section 106 agreement full funding for . .
CitedPyx Granite Co Ltd v Minister of Housing and Local Government CA 1958
Pyx Granite had the right to quarry in two areas of the Malvern Hills. The company required permission to break fresh surface on one of the sites.
Held: Conditions attached to the planning permission relating to such matters as the times when . .
CitedFawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council HL 1960
A grant of planning permission was subject to an agricultural occupancy condition: ‘The occupation of the houses shall be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture as defined by section 119(1) of . .
CitedEast Barnet Urban District Council v British Transport Commission CA 1962
Lord Parker CJ said that when considering whether there has been a change of use of land ‘what is really to be considered is the character of the use of the land, not the particular purpose of a particular occupier.’ . .
CitedAberdeen City and Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority v Elsick Development Company Limited SC 25-Oct-2017
The court was asked whether, anticipating substantial growth, a local authority had power to attach to permissions for development conditions intended to recover sums for pooled fund for infrastructure development.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
CitedMixnams Properties Ltd v Chertsey Urban District Council HL 1965
The local authority was not entitled under the 1960 Act to lay down conditions relating to the licensee’s powers of letting or licensing caravan spaces to its customers. The freedom to contract is a fundamental right, and that if Parliament intends . .
CitedCopeland, Regina (on The Application of) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets Admn 11-Jun-2010
The authority had to consider whether to grant planning permission for a fast-food outlet near a school, which was said to conflict with government policy on healthy eating for children. The authority proceeded on the footing that this was not . .
CitedTesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others CA 25-May-1994
Three companies competed for permission to build a retail food superstore in Witney. The inspector recommended Tesco’s proposal, but the SSE set aside the inspector’s decision in favour of the local authority’s preference. Tesco sought a declaration . .
CitedCity of Bradford Metropolitan Councils v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1986
Lloyd LJ said that it was axiomatic that planning permission cannot be bought or sold . .
CitedRegina v Hillingdon London Borough Council, Ex parte Royco Homes Ltd 1974
A planning condition imposed solely for some other purpose or purposes, such as furtherance of the housing policy of the local authority, will not be valid as a planning condition.
As to the availability of judicial review or certiorari, Lord . .
CitedMitchell v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1995
The developer applied for planning permission to convert a building from use for multiple occupation by way of bedsitting rooms to a small number of self-contained flats. There was a draft development plan of the local planning authority which set . .
CitedVerdin (T/A The Darnhall Estate) v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others Admn 10-Aug-2017
The case concerned a challenge to a decision of the Secretary of State refusing planning permission for residential development. The claimant was successful on a number of grounds, including that the Secretary of State had wrongly rejected, without . .
CitedWelcome Break Group Ltd and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Stroud District Council and Another Admn 3-Feb-2012
The case concerned the grant of planning permission to develop land as a motorway service area upon condition of the acceptance of obligations by the developer and site owner in an agreement made under section 106 of the 1990 Act which included that . .
CitedWorking Title Films Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Westminster City Council and Another Admn 22-Jul-2016
Challenge by a neighbouring occupier (WTF) to a grant of planning permission by the Defendant WCC to the Interested Party MSR for ‘the erection of a building including excavation works to provide three basement storeys and six above ground storeys . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.644386

Environment Agency v Armstrong Environmental Services Ltd: Admn 22 Mar 2005

Judges:

Rose LJ, Holland J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 633 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 33(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSkipaway Ltd v The Environment Agency Admn 5-May-2006
The defendant appealed convictions for breaches of its waste management licence, in that waste had been stored outside the edges of the storage bays. The defendant said that the material had not yet been stored, and that it had been deposited by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Crime

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.224526

Oldfield, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Communities and Local Government and Others: CA 7 Nov 2014

Whether the proposed redevelopment of a site on the seafront at Margate ought to be subjected to an environmental impact assessment

Judges:

Lord Justice Maurice Kay

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 1446

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Environment

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.538319

Regina v Rothschild and RH Tomlinson Ltd: CACD 2004

It would be a contravention of a waste management licence requiring controlled waste not to be stored at a height greater that specified, to have a mound greater that that height containing an admixture of controlled and uncontrolled waste.

Citations:

[2004] EWCA 3320

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedSkipaway Ltd v The Environment Agency Admn 5-May-2006
The defendant appealed convictions for breaches of its waste management licence, in that waste had been stored outside the edges of the storage bays. The defendant said that the material had not yet been stored, and that it had been deposited by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Environment

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.241510

Hart v Anglian Water Services Ltd: CACD 31 Jul 2003

In a private prosecution, Mr Hart complained that the defendant had allowed untreated sewage to be discharged into controlled waters. The defendant pleaded guilty, but now appealed the fine of andpound;200,000.
Held: The sentence was imposed on the basis that the discharge was substantial, and the effect on the environment disastrous. The defendant had many convictions for similar offences. Such discharges were properly characterised as criminal, and it was a question of what priority was given to prevention by the company. There was no standard tariff or scale of penalties, and the court declined to set one, referring only to a guideline booklet produced by the Magistrates association. Here the fine remained manifestly excessive, and was reduced to andpound;60,000.

Citations:

Times 18-Aug-2003

Statutes:

Water Resources Act 1991 85(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, Criminal Sentencing, Utilities

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.185768

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 screening review having been taken into account by the planning committee.
Held: The failure to record the screening was a defect in the way the decision had been reached, and nor was the council able to allow the application to proceed on the basis that fuller details would be supplied later. In deciding whether an EIA is required, the focus should be on likely significant environmental effects rather than on remediation or mitigation measures; and if a decision runs two issues together and rests on the view that remediation measures will be effective to prevent otherwise significant effects, it deprives the public of the opportunity to make informed representations in accordance with the EIA procedures about the adequacy of such measures. The claim was allowed.

Judges:

Mr Justice Sullivan, Richards J

Citations:

Gazette 19-Sep-2002, [2002] EWHC Admin 2009, [2003] JPL 466

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999

Jurisdiction:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.177319

Regina v Liverpool Crown Court, Ex Parte Cooke: QBD 3 Apr 1996

Complaint was made against the council for creating a statutory nuisance under the 1990 Act. The tenant sought compensation under the 1973 Act. The council appealed an award of andpound;3,000 compensation.
Held: Compensation should be awarded for the period from the date of the notice until the date of the hearing. Where however the proceedings were delayed for more than six months from the date of the notice, the period was limited to the last six months before issue. Leggatt LJ ‘The power to make a compensation order under section 35 of the 1973 Act is of course not peculiar to statutory nuisance. So the power, and the monetary limit to which it is subject, were not themselves tailored to the requirements of statutory nuisance. It also seems unlikely that the Legislature paid regard specifically to the period in respect of which compensation would be payable. By section 35 the court may make a compensation order ‘for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from’ the offence. The offence is of allowing a statutory nuisance to exist at the complainants’ premises at the date of the hearing. . . . I see no warrant for construing section 82 (or section 35) so as to entitle the court to take account of the whole period for which the nuisance is alleged to have existed. That is not the subject of the complaint, which therefore gives no notice to the person responsible of the length of the period for which the nuisance is alleged to have existed.’

Judges:

Leggatt LJ, Sir Iain Glidewell

Citations:

Times 22-Apr-1996, [1996] 4 All ER 589

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 82(6), Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 35

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBotross v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council QBD 7-Nov-1994
Statutory nuisance proceedings are in their nature criminal proceedings, and compensation may be awarded by the court. . .
CitedRegina v Inner London Crown Court ex parte Bentham QBD 1989
The defendant sought legal aid to defend an action to abate a statutory nuisance under the 1936 Act.
Held: Such an action was criminal in nature. The action had been brought under section 99, but the imposition of a penalty under s94 was a . .
CitedHerbert v Lambeth London Borough Council QBD 27-Nov-1991
An abatement order had been made against the council under the 1936 Act. The tenant appealed a finding that the magistrates had had no jurisdiction to award compensation under the 1973 Act.
Held: An order under the 1973 Act required a criminal . .
CitedDavenport v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council CA 17-Mar-1995
The court was concerned with the refusal of the magistrates to make a compensation order after a plea of guilty to a statutory nuisance. The magistrates had also refused to award costs of the adjourned hearing at which compensation had been sought. . .
CitedNorthern Ireland Trailers Ltd v Preston County Borough 1972
It was argued that proceedings brought under s94 by information not complaint were a nullity.
Held: The argument failed. A failure to comply with an abatement notice was a criminal offence, but proceedings could also be brought by complaint . .
CitedRegina v Newham Justices, ex parte Hunt etc CA 1976
The court asked whether proceedings under s99 were civil or criminal.
Held: ‘the proper interpretation of this section [section 99] leads to the conclusion that the individual can by information invoke section 94’ The offence was under s94 . .

Cited by:

CitedIssa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) and Issa (Suing By her Next Friend and Father Issa) v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Hackney CA 19-Nov-1996
A Local Authority found guilty of a statutory nuisance is not thereby liable for a civil damages suit. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Nuisance

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.87199

Regina v O’Brien; Regina v Enkel: CACD 19 Apr 2000

A sentence of imprisonment was unnecessarily severe for a first offence of dumping tyres. The case did not involve any hazardous substances, and the offences were at the lower end of the scale, despite the results being unsightly, the risk (at worst) of rats and fire, the absence of any long term effect, the absence of danger, the expectation of being able to redistribute the tyres properly, no previous similar convictions, their (late) guilty pleas, and the fact that they were only part of the operation.

Citations:

Times 19-Apr-2000

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 33(1)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Environment

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.85436

Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence: ChD 11 Dec 1996

Damages for escape of nuclear waste to include diminution of land value. Radioactive pollution of land following such an overflow is physical damage.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Jan-1997, Times 11-Dec-1996

Statutes:

Nuclear Installations Act 1965

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toBlue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence CA 16-Jun-1998
Contamination of land by the overflow of radioactive materials from a pond, led to damages for the cost of repair, and also the permanent diminution of the value in the land from physical damage.
Held: The Court dismissed the appeal of the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromBlue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence CA 16-Jun-1998
Contamination of land by the overflow of radioactive materials from a pond, led to damages for the cost of repair, and also the permanent diminution of the value in the land from physical damage.
Held: The Court dismissed the appeal of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Land

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.78451

Regina v Swale Borough Council, ex parte Royal Society for the Protection of Birds: 1991

A party seeking a judicial review has a duty to go ahead very quickly. The court considered the need for an environmental assessment in respect of the proposed development.

Citations:

[1991] 1 PLR 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedFinn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes Council and MK Windfarm Ltd CA 10-Oct-2008
Judicial Review must be timely
The appellant challenged the grant of permission for a wind farm on neighbouring land. His application for judicial review had been rejected for delay and on the merits.
Held: The court repeated the requirement that an application must be both . .
CitedFriends of Basildon Golf Course v Basildon District Council and Another Admn 23-Jan-2009
The council owned land on which it ran a golf course. It set out to privatise it and sought interest. An application was made for planning permission. The applicants objected to the planning permission, saying that the Environmental Impact . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Judicial Review, Planning, Environment

Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.277139

Baxendale v McMurray: 1867

The plaintiff’s land was next to the river Chess. The defendant had for more than twenty years discharged refuse from his paper factory into the Chess upstream of the plaintiff. Latterly a change in the manufacture had led to a different and greater discharge of refuse. The plaintiff sought an order restraining the discharge.
Held: The defendant had acquired an easement. That right was to discharge such refuse as was generally produced by the reasonable and proper course of paper manufacturing using whatever materials were proper for the purpose. The claim was dismissed.
Lord Cairns LJ indicated though a change of materials had been involved in the business of the dominant owner, the servient owner had cause for complaint if he could show ‘a greater amount of pollution and injury arising from the use of this new material’ in order to establish a breach of his rights .

Judges:

Lord Cairns LJ

Citations:

[1867] 2 Ch App 790, [1867] 31 JP 821

Land, Environment

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.223974

Regina v Cornwall County Council ex p Hardy: Admn 2001

The council granted planning permission although its planning committee had decided that further surveys should be carried out to ensure that bats would not be adversely affected by the proposed development. The question was the adequacy of information provided pursuant to Schedule 3 (where an EIA had been required), rather than the initial decision whether an EIA was required at all. The planning committee had decided that further surveys should be carried out to ensure that bats would not be adversely affected by the development.
Held: Since those surveys might reveal significant adverse effects on bats, it was not open to the committee to conclude that there were no significant nature conservation issues until they had the results of the surveys. The surveys might have revealed significant adverse effects on the bats or their resting places. Without the results of the surveys, they were not in a position to know whether they had the full environmental information required by Regulation 3 before granting planning permission. It was not permissible to defer to the reserved matters stage consideration of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures.

Judges:

Harrison J

Citations:

[2001] 2001 Env LR 473

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedJones, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.187370

Environment Agency v M E Foley Contractors ltd and Another: QBD 18 Jan 2002

The defendant company did not accept that it had accepted special waste at its disposal plant. Instead they claimed to have the appropriate licence or exemption.
Held: The burden of establishing acceptance of special waste was not on the defendant ,on a balance of probabilities, but lay on the prosecution. In effect he was claiming the licence, and so the provisions of the 1980 Act did not transfer the burden of proof.

Judges:

Auld, Gage, LLJ

Citations:

Times 04-Mar-2002

Statutes:

Environmental Protection Act 1990 33(1)(a), Magistrates Courts Act 1980 101

Cited by:

CitedSkipaway Ltd v The Environment Agency Admn 5-May-2006
The defendant appealed convictions for breaches of its waste management licence, in that waste had been stored outside the edges of the storage bays. The defendant said that the material had not yet been stored, and that it had been deposited by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Evidence

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.167719

European Parliament v Council of the European Union 162111: ECJ 25 Feb 1999

ECJ Regulations on the protection of forests against atmospheric pollution and fire – Legal basis – Article 43 of the EC Treaty – Article 130s of the EC Treaty – Parliament’s prerogatives.
Europa ‘It is clear from the provisions of the amended regulations that the aims of the Community schemes for the protection of forests are partly agricultural since they are intended in particular to contribute to safeguarding the productive potential of agriculture, and partly of a specifically environmental nature, since their primary objective is to maintain and monitor forest ecosystems.
In such circumstances it is necessary, in order to determine the appropriate legal basis, to consider whether the measures in question relate principally to a particular field of action, having only incidental effects on other policies, or whether both aspects are equally essential. If the first hypothesis is correct, recourse to a single legal basis is sufficient . . ; if the second is correct, it is insufficient . . and the institution is required to adopt the measure on the basis of both the provisions from which its competence derives . . . However, no such dual basis is possible where the procedures laid down for each legal basis are incompatible with each other . . .
With more particular reference to the common agricultural policy and the Community environmental policy, there is nothing in the case-law to indicate that, in principle, one should take preference over the other. It makes clear that a Community measure cannot be part of Community action on environmental matters merely because it takes account of requirements of protection referred to in Article 130r(2) of the EC Treaty . . . Articles 130r and 130s leave intact the powers held by the Community under other provisions of the Treaty and provide a legal basis only for specific action on environmental matters . . . In contrast, Article 130s of the Treaty must be the basis for provisions which fall specifically within the environmental policy . . , even if they have an impact on the functioning of the internal market . . or if their objective is the improvement of agricultural production . .

Citations:

C-164/97

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedHorvath, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 21-Jul-2006
The claimant sought to challenge the validity of the 2004 Regulations whereby the payment under the Single Payment Scheme was reduced because of the existence of a public right of way across the land.
Held: ‘there are cogent arguments for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Agriculture, Environment

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.162111

Commission v France (Judgment): ECJ 18 Mar 1999

ECJ A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive. In an action under Article 169 of the Treaty, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds requires the Member States to provide the special protection areas referred to therein with a legal protection regime that is capable, in particular, of ensuring both the survival and reproduction of the bird species listed in Annex I to the directive and the breeding, moulting and wintering of migratory species which are regular visitors, albeit not listed in that annex. A protection regime under which – for want of any specific substantive measures, except in relation to hunting – the only status enjoyed by a special protection area is that of State-owned land and of a maritime game reserve is incapable of providing adequate protection for the purposes of those provisions. 4 Under Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, Member States are required to take appropriate steps to avoid pollution and deterioration of the habitats of the species concerned, even in relation to an area which has not been classified as a special protection area provided that, under the directive, it should have been so classified. It follows that any infringement of that provision presupposes that the area in question is one of the most suitable territories in number and size for the conservation of protected species, within the meaning of the fourth subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the directive which lays down the criteria for such classification. In this connection, the mere fact that a site has been included by a Member State in an inventory of important areas for bird conservation does not prove that it ought to have been classified as a special protection area.

Citations:

C-166/97, [1999] ECR I-1719

Cited by:

CitedBown v Secretary of State for Transport CA 31-Jul-2003
The appeal concerned the environmental effect of the erection of a bridge being part of a bypass. It was claimed that the area should have been designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA), and that if so it should be treated as such for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Environment

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.162112

P and O Scottish Ferries Ltd v The Braer Corporation: OHCS 10 Mar 1999

The Act excluded wider claims than those prescribed within it. Economic losses arising for a ferry company losing out because of adverse publicity were not to be claimed. The Act is clear and there is no need to refer back to the Convention on which it was based.

Citations:

Times 10-Mar-1999

Statutes:

Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 1, International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Environment

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.84516

Boyd and Another v Ineos Upstream Ltd and Others: CA 3 Apr 2019

Appeal from injunctions to Ineos Upstream Limited and various subsidiaries of the Ineos Gropu as well as certain individuals. The injunctions were granted against persons unknown who are thought to be likely to become protesters at sites selected by those companies for the purpose of exploration for shale gas by hydraulic fracturing of rock formations, a procedure more commonly known as ‘fracking’.

Judges:

Longmore, David Richards, Leggatt LJJ

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 515, [2019] 4 WLR 100, [2019] WLR(D) 201, [2019] HRLR 11, [2019] Env LR D1

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedLondon Borough of Enfield v Persons Unknown and Others QBD 2-Oct-2020
The council had obtained interim and final injunctions in 2017 against anticipated trespassers on its land and the order was due to expire. It now ought its extension and to amend the terms of the order.
Held: The court noted that no person . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Environment

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.635244

Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions and Another: QBD 15 Mar 2001

A larch tree overhung a garden, but was protected by a tree preservation order. The inspector declined authority to lop it on the basis of its value to the amenity. The Secretary overruled this but his decision was, in turn, set aside by the court on the basis that it was first too indistinct to allow the parties to know just what was allowed, and also that in denying the damage to the amenity value, he had failed to give sufficient reasons for going against the inspector.

Citations:

Gazette 15-Mar-2001, Gazette 29-Mar-2001

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 288

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Planning, Environment

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88780

Clientearth v Commission: ECJ 4 Sep 2018

Provisions Governing The Institutions – Access To Documents – Judgment – Appeal – Access to documents of the EU institutions – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Impact assessment report, draft impact assessment report and opinion of the Impact Assessment Board – Legislative initiatives in respect of environmental matters – Refusal to grant access – Disclosure of the documents requested in the course of the proceedings – Continuing interest in bringing proceedings – Exception relating to the protection of the ongoing decision-making process of an EU institution – General presumption

Citations:

C-57/16, [2018] EUECJ C-57/16P, ECLI:EU:C:2018:660

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment, Information

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.621626

Butterworth v West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Board: HL 26 Nov 1908

The appellants were manufacturers who for fifty years had discharged liquids from their factory into a sewer. The sewer was vested in the local sanitary authority and conveyed the liquids into a stream. The respondents, acting under powers conferred by the West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Act 1894 (57 and 58 Vict. cap. clxvi) raised an action against the appellants in the County Court in which it was held that the appellants had committed an offence in terms of the Rivers Pollution Act 1876. This was affirmed by the King’s Bench Division. The manufacturers appealed.
Held: A manufacturer who discharges polluting liquids into a public sewer which leads into a stream is a ‘person who causes to fall or flow or knowingly permits to fall or flow or to be carried into any stream any poisonous, noxious, or polluting liquid proceeding from any factory,’ and thereby commits an offence under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act 1876, sec. 4. He is not exempted from the provision of the Act by proving a prescriptive right to use the public sewer in the manner complained of.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Lorehurn), Lords Macnaghten, Robertson, and Collins

Citations:

[1908] UKHL 1020, 46 SLR 1020

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Rivers Pollution Prevention Act 1876 4 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment

Updated: 26 April 2022; Ref: scu.621524

Plan B Earth and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy: Admn 20 Jul 2018

Renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review, brought by Plan B Earth and eleven other claimants, of the refusal by the Defendant to revise the 2050 carbon target

Judges:

Supperstone J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1892 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620658

Rogesa v Commission: ECFI 11 Jul 2018

Judgment – Access to documents – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – Greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme – Request for access to information on the determination of the 10% most efficient installations the steel industry – Refusal of access – Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party – Higher public interest – Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 – Concept of information relating to emissions in the environment – Respect of deadlines

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2018:423, T-643/13, [2018] EUECJ T-643/13

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment, Information

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620042

Commission v Slovakia C-626/16: ECJ 4 Jul 2018

Failure of A Member State To Fulfil Obligations – Environment – Landfill of Waste – Judgment – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Environment – Landfill of waste – Directive 1999/31/EC – Existing landfill sites – Article 14 – Definite decision on whether or not operations may continue – Article 13 – Closure procedures – Judgment of the Court declaring a failure to fulfil obligations – Non-compliance – Article 260(2) TFEU – Pecuniary penalties – Penalty payment and lump sum

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:525, [2018] EUECJ C-626/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620009

Steetley Dolomite Ltd v Environment Agency: FTTGRC 23 May 2018

The court was asked whether or not a company is entitled to 184,630 allowances issued to it under the EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme in respect of an industrial plant, Thrislington, for the calendar year 2016 during which the plant did not produce any emissions.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT NV – 2018 – 0003

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Environment, European

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619935

Lanarkshire County Council v Coatbridge Magistrates: HL 8 Apr 1910

In a petition under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts to have the magistrates of certain burghs ordained to abstain from ‘causing to fall or flow, or knowingly permitting to fall or flow or to be carried, into certain streams any solid or liquid sewage matter, held that it was irrelevant to aver in defence that the streams were so polluted as to be merely sewers into which it could not possibly be an offence to put sewage.

Judges:

Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Earl of Halsbury, Lord James, Lord Atkinson, Lord Collins, and Lord Shaw

Citations:

[1910] UKHL 508, 47 SLR 508

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Environment

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.619790

Empress Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd v National Rivers Authority: HL 22 Jan 1998

A diesel tank was in a yard which drained into a river. It was surrounded by a bund to contain spillage, but that protection was over ridden by an extension pipe from the tank to a drum outside the bund. Someone opened a tap on that pipe so that diesel flowed into the drum until it overflowed.
Held: Whether a defendant caused an escape into a river was not defeated by an additional intervening cause. The question was, had an act been done and did it contribute forseeably to the escape. Acts of third parties and natural events are not defences to the strict criminal liability imposed by section 85(1) of the Water Resources Act 1991 for polluting controlled waters unless they are really exceptional events. The court discouraged too mechanical an approach to causation: ‘The first point to emphasise is that common sense answers to questions of causation will differ according to the purpose for which the question is asked. Questions of causation often arise for the purpose of attributing responsibility to someone, for example, so as to blame him for something which has happened or to make him guilty of an offence or liable in damages. In such cases, the answer will depend upon the rule by which the responsibility is being attributed.’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nolan, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde

Citations:

Gazette 26-Feb-1998, Times 09-Feb-1998, Gazette 25-Mar-1998, [1998] 2 WLR 350, [1998] UKHL 5, [1999] 2 AC 22, [1998] 1 All ER 481

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Water Resources Act 1991 85(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromEmpress Car Company (Abertillery) Limited v National Rivers Authority (Now, Environment Agency) Admn 11-Dec-1996
. .
CitedGaloo Ltd and Others v Bright Grahame Murray CA 21-Dec-1993
It is for the Court to decide whether the breach of duty was the cause of a loss or simply the occasion for it by the application of common sense. A breach of contract, to found recovery, must be shown to have been ‘an ‘effective’ or ‘dominant’ . .
CitedAlphacell Ltd v Woodward HL 3-May-1972
The defendant operated a paper manufacturing plant which involved maintaining tanks of polluting liquid near the river, so that pollution would occur if they overflowed. There were pumps which ought normally to have drawn off the liquid and . .
DisapprovedPrice v Cromack 1975
The defendant maintained two lagoons on his land into which, pursuant to an agreement, the owners of adjoining land discharged effluent. The lagoons developed leaks which allowed the effluent to escape into the river.
Held: The escape had not . .
DisapprovedWychavon District Council v National Rivers Authority QBD 16-Sep-1992
The council maintained the sewage system in its district as agent for the statutory authority, the Severn Trent Water Authority. It operated, maintained and repaired the sewers. As sewage authority, it received raw sewage into its sewers. On the . .
CitedNational Rivers Authority v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd HL 21-Nov-1994
The defendant sewerage undertaker received sewage, treated it in filter beds and discharged the treated liquid into the river. One night someone unlawfully discharged a solvent called iso-octanol into the sewer. It passed through the sewage works . .
CitedWeld-Blundell v Stephens HL 1920
The plaintiff had been successfully sued for a libel contained in a document which he had supplied to his accountant.
Held: He could not recover the damages he had had to pay to the defamed party from his accountant, who had negligently left . .
CitedStansbiev Troman CA 1948
A decorator working alone in a house went out to buy wallpaper and left the front door unlocked. He was held liable for the loss caused by a thief who entered while he was away. For the purpose of attributing liability to the thief (e.g. in a . .
Wrongly decidedImpress (Worcester) Ltd v Rees QBD 1971
The appellants kept a fuel oil storage tank with an unlocked valve in their yard near the river. An unauthorised person entered during the night and opened the valve. The justices convicted.
Held: The appeal was allowed. ‘On general principles . .
CitedMediterranean Freight Services Ltd v BP Oil International Ltd (The Fiona) CA 27-Jul-1994
A ship owner is to have made his ship seaworthy in order to claim an indemnity for dangerous fuel set alight by a third party. He was not entitled to claim where the failure to keep the ship seaworthy was his own.
Hirst LJ said: ‘The inclusion . .
CitedNational Rivers Authority v Wright Engineering Co Ltd QBD 19-Nov-1993
Escape following vandalism was not ’caused’ by the company. It was not foreseeable. Although there had been past incidents of vandalism at the defendant’s premises, ‘the vandalism involved was not reasonably foreseeable because it was out of all . .
CitedWelsh Water Authority v Williams Motors (Cwmdu) Ltd QBD 1-Dec-1988
Oil was supplied to Williams Motors by Autobrec Oils and there was spillage from an offset fuel pipe out of sight of the delivery driver. Some of the spilt oil got into the storm drainage, and thus into a canal. Williams Motors were charged under . .
CitedRegina v CPC (UK) Ltd, CPC (UK) Ltd v National Rivers Authority CACD 4-Aug-1994
The defendant operated a factory, using cleaning liquid carried through PVC piping. The piping leaked because it had been badly installed by the reputable subcontractors employed by the previous owners of the factory.
Held: Although the . .

Cited by:

CitedTransco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council HL 19-Nov-2003
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works
The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture.
Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher . .
CitedFairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd and Others HL 20-Jun-2002
The claimants suffered mesothelioma after contact with asbestos while at work. Their employers pointed to several employments which might have given rise to the condition, saying it could not be clear which particular employment gave rise to the . .
CitedRegina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah HL 25-Mar-1999
Both applicants, Islam and Shah, citizens of Pakistan, but otherwise unconnected with each other, had suffered violence in Pakistan after being falsely accused them of adultery. Both applicants arrived in the UK and were granted leave to enter as . .
CitedExpress Ltd v The Environment Agency QBD 15-Jul-2004
The dairy appealed its conviction for allowing cream to enter a brook from the land of its customer.
Held: Polluting matter did not need to be itself noxious or poisonous, it was enough that it stained or tinted the water as did cream. Though . .
CitedChester v Afshar HL 14-Oct-2004
The claimant suffered back pain for which she required neurosurgery. The operation was associated with a 1-2% risk of the cauda equina syndrome, of which she was not warned. She went ahead with the surgery, and suffered that complication. The . .
AppliedRegina v Finlay CACD 8-Dec-2003
The defendant appealed from his conviction for manslaughter. He had been found to have prepared heroin by loading it into a syringe and passing it to a friend.
Held: Even if ‘the appellant had not himself wielded the syringe, he would have . .
CitedCommissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 15-Jul-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
CitedRegina v Kennedy HL 17-Oct-2007
The defendant had been convicted of manslaughter. He had supplied a class A drug to a friend who then died taking it. The House was asked ‘When is it appropriate to find someone guilty of manslaughter where that person has been involved in the . .
CitedHurst, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v London Northern District Coroner HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant’s son had been stabbed to death. She challenged the refusal of the coroner to continue with the inquest with a view to examining the responsibility of any of the police in having failed to protect him.
Held: The question amounted . .
CitedRegina v RL and JF CACD 28-Aug-2008
Club, not members, prosecutable for breach
The Environment Agency appealed against dismissal of charges against the defendants who were officers in an unincorporated members’ golf club on whose land there had been pollution. The judge had ruled that the unincorporated association could have . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Utilities

Leading Case

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.135165

Klohn v An Bord Pleanala; Sligo County Council, Maloney and Matthews Animal Collections Ltd: ECJ 5 Jun 2018

Environmental Impact Assessment – Notion of ‘Not Prohibitively Expensive – Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Impact assessment – Access to a review procedure – Requirement that review procedure is not prohibitively expensive – Notion of ‘not prohibitively expensive’ – General principle of law – Temporal application – Direct effect – res judicata – Consequences for a decision awarding costs that has become definitive

Judges:

Bobek AG

Citations:

C-167/17, [2018] EUECJ C-167/17 – O, ECLI:EU:C:2018:387

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616997

Commission v Italy C-251/17: ECJ 31 May 2018

Environment – Judgment – Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations – Urban waste water collection and treatment – Directive 91/271 / EEC – Articles 3, 4 and 10 – Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfill obligations – Non-implementation – Article 260 (2) TFEU – Financial penalties – Time-limit and lump sum

Citations:

[2018] EUECJ C-251/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:358

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616930

Commission v Netherlands: ECJ 2 Oct 2003

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations – Directive 91/676/EEC – Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources – Article 5(4) and (5), paragraphs A(1), (2), (4) and (6) of Annex II and paragraph 1(2) and (3) and paragraph 2 of Annex III – Capacity of storage vessels for livestock manure – Limitation of the land application of fertilisers based on a balance between the foreseeable nitrogen requirements of crops and the nitrogen supply to crops from the soil and from fertilisation – Ensuring that the amount of livestock manure applied to land each year does not exceed a specified amount per hectare – Provisions contained in a code of good agricultural practice and covering periods, conditions and procedures for the land application of fertilisers – Obligation to adopt any additional measures or reinforced actions necessary

Citations:

C-322/00, [2003] EUECJ C-322/00

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 91/676/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

European, Animals, Environment

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.186872

Aannemersbedriijf P K Kraaijeveld v Gedeputeerde Staten Van Zuid-Holland ‘the Dutch-Dykes case): ECJ 24 Oct 1996

ECJ The fact that in this case the Member States have a discretion under Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of the directive does not preclude judicial review of the question whether the national authorities exceeded their discretion (see, in particular, VERBOND VAN NEDERLANDSE ONDERNEMINGEN). Consequently where, pursuant to national law, a court must or may raise of its own motion pleas in law based on a binding national rule which were not put forward by the parties, it must, for matters within its jurisdiction, examine of its own motion whether the legislative or administrative authorities of the Member State remained within the limits of their discretion under Article 2(1) and 4(2) of the directive.

Citations:

C-72/95, [1997] 3 CMLR 1, [1996] ECR I-0503, [1996] EUECJ C-72/95, [1996] ECR I-5403

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC)

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedJones, 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 . .
CitedDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Alford Admn 5-May-2005
The land owner had restored derelict farm buildings to previous levels of agricultural production. She had applied manure and calcified seaweed to the land. She appealed conviction for having carried out projects on land without satiisfying the . .
CitedSave Britain’s Heritage, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others Admn 14-May-2010
The claimant challenged the order allowing the demolition of a disused listed building saying that the Direction was contrary to European law in not requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The Secretary of State said an EIA was not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Environment

Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.161538

Commission v Bulgaria C-97/17: ECJ 26 Apr 2018

Environment – Conservation of Wild Birds – Judgment – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Protection of nature – Directive 2009/147/EC – Conservation of wild birds – Special Protection Area (SPA) – Classification as SPAs of the most suitable territories in number and size for the conservation of the bird species listed in Annex I to Directive 2009/147 – Important Bird Area (IBA) – IBA Rila – Partial classification of IBA Rila as an SPA

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:285, [2018] EUECJ C-97/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment, Animals

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609302

Grace and Sweetman v An Bord Pleanala: ECJ 19 Apr 2018

Environment – Assessment of The Implications of A Wind Farm Project – Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Article 6(3) – Directive 2009/147/EC – Assessment of the implications of a wind farm project for a special protection area – Hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) – Mitigation measures

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:274, [2018] EUECJ C-164/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Environment

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.609058