R (on the application of Burridge) v Breckland District Council

Town and Country Planning Planning permission. The defendant local authority granted the interested party two planning permissions for a biomass renewable energy plant and a combined heat and power plant. The claimant applied for judicial review on the basis that a further screening opinion under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, should have been carried out. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division dismissed the claimant's appeal against the judge's decision to dismiss her application. There was no reason to interfere with the judge's findings, which had been properly open to him in the circumstances of the instant case.

R (on the application of Barons Pub Company Ltd) v Staines Magistrates' Court

Food and drugs Food hygiene. The claimant company operated a food business at a pub. Following the carrying out of a routine food hygiene inspection by the respondent authority, during which contraventions of the Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006 (the Regulations) were found and the kitchen was found to require deep cleaning, the authority decided to prosecute the claimant, which applied to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process. The district judge refused the application and the claimant challenged that decision by way of judicial review proceedings. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held that, on the totality of the evidence, it was clear that the authority had fully complied with its Environmental Protection Enforcement Policy and there had been clear, strong evidence of a serious breach of the Regulations by the claimant which had justified prosecution.

L v M

European Union Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art3(4) and (5) of Council Directive (EC) 2001-42 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 (on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment). The request had been made in the course of proceedings between L and M, a municipality, concerning the legal validity of a building plan prepared by M without an environmental assessment, as required by that directive, having been carried out.

R (on the application of Edwards and another) v Environment Agency and others

European Union Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the fifth paragraph of art 10a of Council Directive (EEC) 85-337 (on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment) and the fifth paragraph of art 15a of Council Directive (EC) 96-61 (concerning integrated pollution prevention and control), as amended by Directive (EC) 2003-35 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003. The request had been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Mr Edwards and Ms Pallikaropoulos and, on the other, the Environment Agency, the First Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs concerning a permit issued by the Environment Agency for the operation of a cement works. The request concerned the conformity with European Union law of the decision of the House of Lords ordering Ms Pallikaropoulos, whose appeal had been dismissed as unfounded, to pay the costs of the opposing parties.

Skrytek v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others

Town and country planning Development. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claimant's application pursuant to of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, held that the planning inspector had not misconstrued the 'waste hierarchy' policy in allowing an appeal against a decision to refuse planning permission for a proposed waste treatment facility.

Dennis Rye Ltd v Bolsover District Council

Case stated Appeal from Crown Court. The claimant appealed, by way of case stated, two convictions for statutory nuisance arising trough smoke caused by the burning of waste. The claimant contended that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction. The Administrative Court held that there was evidence of a complaint from someone adversely affected albeit that person had not given oral testimony. Moreover, it was not necessary for the evidence to come directly from a person adversely affected. There were a number of witnesses with the relevant expertise and experience who could draw conclusions as to the effect of burning and the creation of smoke such as would give rise to a nuisance.

Salzburger Flughafen GmbH v Umweltsenat

European Union Environment. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of the relevant provisions of Council Directive (EEC) 85-337 of 27 June 1985 (on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), as amended by Council Directive (EC) 97-11 of 3 March 1997 (Directive 85-337). The request had been made in proceedings between Salzburger Flughafen GmbH (Salzburger Flughafen) and the Umweltsenat (Administrative Chamber for Environmental Matters) concerning the obligation to subject certain projects which expanded the infrastructure of Salzburg airport to an environmental impact assessment.

Thames Water Utilities Ltd v Bromley Magistrates' Court

Environment Waste. Thames Water Utilities was convicted of contravention of s33(1)(a) of the following the escape of sewerage into the Bromley London Borough, which was upheld by the district judge on judicial review. It sought judicial review of the judge's decision on the ground that 'deposit' in s 33(1)(a) of the Act imported a deliberate act of depositing, as opposed to an unintentional escape of waste. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the claim, held that 'deposit' included unintended escapes, as there was no real doubt that the intention of the legislature had been to impose strict liability.

Leth v Austria

European Union Rules on competition. The Court of Justice of the European Union made a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of art 3 of Council Directive (EEC) 85-337 (on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment), as amended by Council Directive (EC) 97-11 and by Directive (EC) 2003-35 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The request had been made in the course of proceedings between Ms Leth, on the one hand, and Austria and the State of Lower Austria, on the other, regarding her application for: (i) compensation for the pecuniary damage which she claimed to have sustained as a result of the decrease in the value of her home following the extension of Vienna-Schwechat airport (Austria); and (ii) a declaration that the defendants in the main proceedings would be liable for any future damage.

Poland v European Commission

European Union Environment. The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by Poland for the annulment of European Commission Decision (EU) 2011-278 of 27 April 2011, determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to art 10a of Directive (EC) 2003-87 of the European Parliament and of the Council (establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community) and amending Council Directive (EC) 96-61, as last amended by Directive (EC) 2009-29 of the European Parliament and of the Council, so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community.