Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2013] All ER (D) 118 (May)
Neutral Citation: [2013] EWHC 1065 (Admin)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (London)

James Dingemans QC (Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Representation Richard Harwood QC (instructed by Richard Buxton Environmental & Public Law) for the claimant.
  Estelle Dehon (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) for the authority.
  Christopher Boyle QC (instructed by Browne Jacobson) for Natural England.
  Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC (instructed by Howes Percival) for the interested party.
Judgment Dates: 7 May 2013


Town and country planning - Development consent - Environmental impact assessment - Environmental impact assessment development - Agriculture and aquaculture - Interested party applying for planning permission - Natural England advising environmental impact assessment and habitats appropriate assessment not required - Local planning authority granting planning permission without environmental impact assessment or habitats appropriate assessment - Local planning authority imposing planning permission conditions - Claimant contending that planning permission granted unlawfully - Whether planning permission should be quashed.

The Case

Town and country planning Development consent. The defendant local authority granted planning permission for the development of a site that was in close proximity to the River Wensum; a site of special scientific interest. The authority consulted with Natural England and concluded that an environmental impact assessment and a habitats appropriate assessment were not required as there was no risk of contamination. However, the authority imposed conditions on the planning permission that required the monitoring of water quality and measures for remediation if the river became contaminated. The Administrative Court held that the planning permission would be quashed as it was not rationally possible to impose conditions which pointed to a risk of contamination but, at the same time, adopt the view that there was no relevant risk of pollution.

Practice Areas

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