Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Bateman, R (on the application of) v South Cambridgeshire District Council & Anor.

Country/Territory
United Kingdom
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Feb 22, 2011
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
Court of Appeal
Seat of court
London
Judge
MUMMERY
MOORE-BICK
JACKSON.
Reference number
[2011] EWCA Civ 157
Language
English
Subject
Land & soil, Environment gen.
Keyword
Land-use planning
Abstract
Camgrain Storage Limited sought planning permission for the extension of a grain storage and handling facility near to a village. The proposed development fell within Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. B asked for a screening opinion from the lpa, SCDC, who replied in writing stating that in their opinion, the development would not be ‘likely to have significant effects on the environment’ and that in their opinion an EIA was not required. This letter was accompanied by a statement from a planning officer giving reasons for that decision. Planning permission was subsequently granted. The Claimants (Mr and Mrs Bateman) had applied for judicial review of a decision of the local planning authority granting planning permission to the interested party (Camgrain), The Claimants’ main argument was that the planning officer gave no reasons for her conclusion that there would not be significant environmental effects in relation to relevant environmental impacts but essentially simply stated a conclusion. Thus, the reasons accompanying the screening opinion did not contact sufficient reasoning to satisfy the requirements of the Regulations and Directive 85/337, was illogical and irrational and did not give sufficient reasoning to comply with R (on the application of Mellor) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (C-75/08) (2010) PTSR 880 ECJ , in that it did not provide sufficient information to enable anyone interested in the decision to see that proper consideration had been given to the possible environmental effects of the development and to understand the reasons for the decision, that the likely effect of the development on traffic movements, noise and landscape had not been properly considered and that the planning officer had failed properly to explain why an EIA was not required. The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal as the High Court refused permission to challenge the grant of planning permission. The Court of Appeal has given important guidance on the need for sufficiently clear reasons to be given for a local authority’s decision on a screening opinion that an environmental impact assessment is not required, and had upheld the application and quashed the planning decision. Planning authorities had to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a development was likely to have a significant effect on the environment. In a screening opinion the lpa had to provide sufficient information to enable an interested party to see that the possible environmental effects of a development had been properly considered and to understand the reasons for a decision. In this case the planning officer had given no clear statement of her reasons for concluding that there would be no discernible effects on traffic, landscape or noise. The adoption of a screening opinion was part of process leading to the grant or refusal of planning permission and if one step in that process was legally flawed, the whole process was flawed and the permission must be quashed.
Full text
COU-156623.pdf