Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2013] All ER (D) 20 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2013] EWHC 977 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (London)

Mr Justice Lindblom

Representation William Upton (instructed by Richard Buxton Environmental & Public Law) for the claimant
  Harriet Townsend (instructed by Brighton & Hove City Council) for the authority
Judgment Dates: 23 April 2013


Town and Country Planning - Development consent - Environmental impact assessment - Local planning authority granting planning permissions - Claimant contending that authority not having considered whole development - Claimant contending authority splitting development into two or more sub-projects - Claimant contending development consent unlawful by virtue of flawed screening process - Authority admitting screening process flawed - Authority undertaking a second screening process - Authority contending second screening process validated development consent - Claimant contesting second screening protest could not validate development consent - Claimant seeking judicial review of planning permissions - Whether authority engaging in the mischief of salami-slicing - Whether the authority undertaking valid screening processes - Whether court should exercise discretion to quash planning permission - Council Directive (EEC) 85/337 - Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 - Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999.

The Case

Town and Country Planning Development consent. The defendant local planning authority granted development consent based on an Environmental Impact Assessment screening process that had been conducted in June 2011. The claimant opposed the grant of development consent for nearby land. The claimant contended that the June 2011 screening process had been flawed. The authority admitted to conducting a flawed process and carried out a second screening process that also concluded that the development was not an EIA development. In December 2012, two subsequent planning permissions were granted in respect of the same site. These subsequent permissions had been based on screening processes conducted in August 2012 and November 2012. The claimant issued two applications for judicial review, one concerning the August 2011 permission and the other concerning the two permissions granted in 2012. The essence of both claims was that the screening opinions had been unlawful. Aside from the admitted flaws in the June 2011 screening process, the Administrative Court held that the authority had otherwise conducted impeccable screening processes and the claim for judicial review in respect of the December 2012 permissions would be dismissed. Further, although the August 2011 permission had been granted unlawfully and the second screening opinion could not remedy a flawed process. In the circumstances of the instant case, the court would not exercise its discretion to quash the August 2011 planning permission.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.