Finn-Kelcey v Milton Keynes Council & Anor. Pays/Territoire Royaume-Uni Type de cour Nationale - cour supérieure Date Oct 10, 2008 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal Court of Appeal Siège de la cour London Juge KeeneThomasHugues. Numéro de référence [2008] EWCA Civ 1067 Langue Anglais Sujet Énergie, Terre et sols Mot clé Conservation de l'énergie/production de l'énergie Planification territoriale Énergie renouvelable Résumé The present case concerned a proposed wind farm. The planning application had included an EIA andsupplementary information was provided which included wind speed data, following a request “on a non-regulatory basis” by the Council. That information was provided to representatives of the local group opposing the development in hard copy, but not the accompanying CDs which held the raw data, including wind speeds, or the letter enclosing the supplementary information, which stated that the wind speed data was included on the CDs. Nor was this information placed on the public files although it was advertised in a local paper that the information was available for inspection and that copies could be purchased. The Claimant complained about the lack of availability of the raw wind data to objectors. The case had been dealt with on the erroneous legal basis before the Administrative Court. Collins J. had proceeded on the basis that the applicable regulations were the 1999 Regulations as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(Amendment) Regulations 2006. In fact the case was governed by the 1999 Regulations in their unamended form. The Court of Appeal held that there had been no breach of reg.19 of the 1999 Regulations in their original form. Reg. 19(4) required the recipient of further information to send a copy to “each person to whom, in accordance with these Regulations, the statement to which it relates was sent”. The Court doubted if the objectors were such a person but in any event took the view that reg. 19(4) applied only to information provided pursuant to a request under reg. 19(1) and the provision by the of the wind data in this case had been in response to a non-regulatory request not an exercise of the Councils powers under reg.19. 31. The case is also of real interest on the issue of promptness and delay in judicial review challenges to the grant of planning permission. CPR r.54.5 requires that claims be brought promptly and in any event within 3 months. The planning permission was granted on 14 January 2008 and the claim lodged on 10 April 2008 i.e. just within the 3 months. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the High Court's refusal of permission to seek judicial review of the Council's decision to grant planning permission for the construction of seven wind turbines in Olney, Buckinghamshire. The Court held that technical wind speed information which was referred to in documents on the planning file was available to objectors, and that there had been no breach of a Directive 2003/35/EC. It was also held that the Judge was correct to refuse permission on the basis that the claimant had not brought his claim promptly in circumstances where proceedings were brought just within three months from the date of the decision. The Court emphasised the importance of acting promptly in cases which sought to challenge the grant of planning permission and indicated that the need for promptness in challenging planning decisions was also particularly acute in the case of renewable energy projects. Texte intégral COU-156629.pdf