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.
Mr Justice Sullivan, Richards J
Gazette 19-Sep-2002,  EWHC Admin 2009,  JPL 466
England and Wales
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 – Younger 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.
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.177319