Smith v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions and others: CA 5 Mar 2003

The court distilled four principles in deciding whether an environmental impact assessment was to be required. At the outline consent stage the planning authority must have sufficient details of any impact on the environment and of any mitigation to enable it to comply with its regulation 4(2) obligation; and there will be a failure to comply with regulation 4(2) if questions relating to the significance of the impact on the environment and the effectiveness of any mitigation are left over. But it is consistent with these principles to leave final details of, for example, a landscaping scheme, to be clarified in the context of a reserved matter or by virtue of a condition.
Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Waller Mrs Justice Black
[2003] EWCA Civ 262
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina (Smith) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others Admn 19-Dec-2001
. .

Cited by:
CitedBurkett, Regina (on the Application of) v Hammersmith and Fulham Admn 15-May-2003
Outline permission was granted for a large development, reserving certain matters. The applicant challenged the permission saying that the application had not included the information required under the Regulations, and the authority had failed to . .
CitedJones, 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 May 2021; Ref: scu.179550