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 with a proposal of this kind there would need to be a number of ‘non-standard planning conditions and enforceable obligations under section 106’, and that these were precisely the sort of controls which should have been ‘identified in a publicly-accessible way in an environmental statement prepared under the Regulations’
‘ . . it was not right to approach the matter on the basis that the significant adverse effects could be rendered insignificant if suitable conditions were imposed. The proper approach was to say that potentially this is a development which has significant adverse environmental implications: what are the measures which should be included in order to reduce or offset those adverse effects?’
Sullivan J said: ‘Whilst each case will no doubt turn upon its own particular facts, and whilst it may well be perfectly reasonable to envisage the operation of standard conditions and a reasonably managed development, the underlying purpose of the Regulations in implementing the Directive is that the potentially significant impacts of a development are described together with a description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and, where possible, offset any significant adverse effects on the environment. Thus the public is engaged in the process of assessing the efficacy of any mitigation measures.
It is not appropriate for a person charged with making a screening opinion to start from the premise that although there may be significant impacts, these can be reduced to insignificance as a result of the implementation of conditions of various kinds. The appropriate course in such a case is to require an environmental statement setting out the significant impacts and the measures which it is said will reduce their significance . . ‘
Judges:
Sullivan J
Citations:
[2002] EWHC 2009 (Admin), , [2003] Env LR 17
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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
Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.427034
