Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Capel Parish Council v Surrey County Council.

Country/Territory
United Kingdom
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Mar 5, 2009
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
High Court of Justice
Seat of court
London
Judge
Collins
Reference number
[2009] EWHC 350 (Admin)
Language
English
Subject
Waste & hazardous substances, Land & soil, Legal questions
Keyword
Solid waste Food waste Land-use planning Organic waste Waste disposal Waste domestic sources Waste non-domestic sources
Abstract
In the present case the claims are challenging a decision of the County Council to include in the Surrey Waste Plan a brickwork site based in the Parish Council's area. It was proposed that an incinerator would be built on the brickwork site. The Plan was submitted to the secretary of state for independent examination as required by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 s.20(1). The inspectors applied the guidance in the then planning policy statement 12 (PPS 12) in accordance with s.19(2)(a) and their overall view was that the numbered tests set out in PPS 12 had all been met subject to a number of minor modifications. However, the guidance contained in PPS 12 had been amended as it contained a materially inaccurate statement amounting to an error of law. The Judge noted that the inspectors applied the guidance as it existed at the time. And while they could not be criticised for that, their recommendation could not stand. Under the guidance as applied it was stated that there was a presumption that the development plan document was sound unless it was shown to be otherwise as a result of evidence. That was an error of law; there was no presumption of soundness. It was therefore incumbent on the inspectors to consider for themselves whether the policies were sound. Thus they would have not only to consider any specific points made by objectors but also any material matters which could indicate unsoundness. This would, in relation to specific allocations, include consideration of whether the process whereby the sites were chosen and others said to be more appropriate rejected was satisfactory. Equally, in the context of this case where it was accepted that Clockhouse Brickworks was by no means ideal, the inspectors' consideration should have required a rigorous examination of any suggested alternative sites and of whether in reality an incinerator alternative to landfill was achievable. This is apparent from the fact that the sites other than Clockhouse Brickworks for the construction of an incinerator were in the Green Belt. In addition, in dealing with site specific alternatives, PPS 12 by paragraph 2.15 emphasises the need for a 'robust and credible assessment' of the suitability of the site, its availability and its accessibility for the particular uses or mix of uses. The inspectors referred to the presumption of soundness throughout their report. The presumption clearly played a part in the conclusions reached and, accordingly, the inclusion of the brickworks in the development plan documents had to be quashed.
Full text
COU-156443.pdf