Regina (Goodman and Another) v Lewisham London Borough Council: CA 14 Feb 2003

Claimants challenged the grant of planning consent for the construction of a storage and distribution facility without first undertaking an environmental impact assessment.
Held: The local authority had concluded that the project could not be encompassed by the phrases ‘infrastructure project’ or ‘urban development project’. Whilst there might be some scope for disagreement, that did not mean that a decision could only be challenged by way of review as to its Wednesbury unreasonableness. If in law the interpretation was incorrect, the judge had a duty to correct it, and that did not involve such considerations, though the issue might arise later. The interpretation was outside the range of reasonable responses, and the appeal was allowed.


Brooke, Buxton, LJJ, Morland J


Times 21-Feb-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 140, Gazette 03-Apr-2003, [2003] JPL 1309




Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 (1999 No 293) Sch 2 10(b)


England and Wales


CitedAssociated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .

Cited by:

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 . .
CitedRichardson and Orme v North Yorkshire County Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimants appealed against an order dismissing their application for a judicial review of the respondent’s grant of planning permission. They contended that a councillor with an interest in the matter had wrongfully not been excluded from the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Environment, Planning, Local Government

Updated: 22 October 2022; Ref: scu.179729