‘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 member of the Ryburgh Village Action Group. The proposal involved the erection of two silos for 3,000 tons of barley, and the construction of a lorry park with wash bay and ancillary facilities, on a site close to the River Wensum. Permission was granted by the council, following consultation with the relevant statutory bodies, notably Natural England (NE) and the Environment Agency (EA), on 13 September 2011.’
Held: The appeal was dismissed. It is intrinsic to the scheme of the EIA Directive and the Regulations that the classification of the proposal is governed by the characteristics and effects of the proposal as presented to the authority, not by reference to steps subsequently taken to address those effects. Though this was a clear defect, that failure did not in the event prevent the fullest possible investigation of the proposal and the involvement of the public. There was no reason to think that a different process would have resulted in a different decision.
[2015] BLGR 593, [2015] UKSC 52, [2015] WLR(D) 333, [2015] 4 All ER 169, [2016] Env LR 5, [2015] 1 WLR 3710, UKSC 2014/0044
Bailii, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, Bailii Summary
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 61
England and Wales
Citing:
At first instance – Champion v North Norfolk District Council and Another Admn 7-May-2013
The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for the erection of silos for the storage of barley. He said that the development might adversely impact on a nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest.
Held: The judicial review . .
Appeal from – Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Others CA 18-Dec-2013
The claimant had succeeded in a challenge to the grant of planning permission for the building of two barley silos. He said that the development was near and might affect Site of Special Scientic interest. The Council had at the same time said that . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – British Telecommunications Plc and Bloomsbury Land Investments v Gloucester City Council Admn 26-Nov-2001
The land site to be developed was of archaeological interest and the relevance of a mitigation strategy was considered.
Held: It is for the planning authority to decide whether there are likely to be significant effects on the environment . .
Cited – Gillespie v Secretary of State and Another Admn 20-Jan-2003
. .
Cited – Bellway 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 . .
Cited – Jones, Regina (on the Application of) v Mansfield District Council and Another CA 16-Oct-2003
Plannning permission was sought. Objectors said that it would have such an impact that an environmental impact assessment was required. They now sought judicial review of the decision to proceed without one.
Held: The judge had explained the . .
Cited – Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Vogels v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, etc ECJ 7-Sep-2004
ECJ Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna – Concept of ‘plan’ or ‘project’ – Assessment of the implications of certain plans or projects for the protected site.
Cited – Hart District Council, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others Admn 1-May-2008
Sullivan J said: ‘Unlike an EIA, which must be in the form prescribed by the EIA Directive, and must include, for example, a non-technical summary, enabling the public to express its opinion on the environmental issues raised (see Berkeley v the . .
Cited – Renfree v Mageean CA 30-Jun-2011
Appeal against a quashing of a decision of the planning Inspector appointed by the the Secretary of State, allowing the appellant’s appeal against the refusal of the third respondent to grant planning permission for the erection of a 1.3 megawatt . .
Cited – Berky, Regina (on The Application of) v Newport City Council and Others CA 29-Mar-2012
Appeal against refusal of permission to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of a planning permission given by Newport City Council for a mixed development including the construction of a food store, and the restoration of a former . .
Cited – Loader, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Goverment and Others CA 29-Jun-2012
Pill LJ considered the adoption of screening opinions by local planning authorities: ‘Mr Maurici [for the Secretary of State] accepted that screening decisions will usually be made at an early stage of the planning process. However, if a council . .
Cited – Minister For The Environment, Heritage And Local Government v An Bord Pleanala ECJ 11-Apr-2013
ECJ Environment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Article 6 – Conservation of natural habitats – Special areas of conservation – Assessment of the implications for a protected site of a plan or project – Criteria to be . .
Cited – No Adastral New Town Ltd v Suffolk Coastal District Council and Another CA 17-Feb-2015
Richards LJ considered the language of article 6(3), which ‘focuses on the end result of avoiding damage to an SPA and the carrying out of an AA for that purpose’. He noted the difference in Sweetman between the Advocate General’s formulation, but . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham And Others, ex parte Burkett and Another HL 23-May-2002
The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission for a development which would affect her. The authority objected that the application was made after three months after their decision, and so leave should not be . .
Cited – Gemeinde Altrip v Land Rheinland-Pfalz ECJ 7-Nov-2013
ECJ Request for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directive 85/337/EEC – Environmental impact assessment – Aarhus Convention – Directive 2003/35/EC – Right to challenge a development consent decision – . .
Cited – Walton 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 . .
Cited – Lebus and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v South Cambridgeshire District Council Admn 27-Aug-2002
The court cionsidered the relevance of proposed mitigation measures insofar as they might mitigate environmental effects of a development in a proposed egg production unit for 12,000 free-range chickens.
Held: It should have been obvious that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Environment, European
Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550390
