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 succeeded. The planning committee would have been entitled on the material before them in 2011 rationally to reach the conclusion that there was no relevant risk requiring appropriate assessment or an EIA. However, such a conclusion was inconsistent with the decision at the same time to impose a requirement for testing of water quality and remediation if necessary: ‘These conditions, which could only be imposed where the Committee considered them necessary, suggested that the Committee considered that there was a risk that pollutants could enter the river. This would also have been a rational and reasonable conclusion available to the Committee, in the light of the detailed matters set out above.
It does not seem to me that the council could, rationally, adopt both positions at once . . I do not consider that it is open for me to consider that this inconsistency was simply a function of local democracy at work, and that it could be ignored. . . ‘ The decision could not be saved by exercising a discretion not to quash.
James Dingemans QC
 EWHC 1065 (Admin)
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 61
England and Wales
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 . .
At first instance – Champion, Regina (on The Application of) v North Norfolk District Council and Another SC 22-Jul-2015
‘The appeal concerns a proposed development by Crisp Maltings Group Ltd (‘CMGL’) at their Great Ryburgh plant in Norfolk, in the area of the North Norfolk District Council (‘the council’). It was opposed by the appellant, Mr Matthew Champion, a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Environment, European
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.510193