Highway Definitive map. The Administrative Court held that as the claimants had not complied strictly with the map requirements of to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the lack of compliance was not de minimis, their challenge to the defendant local authority's refusal for modification orders to the definitive map and statement would be dismissed.
Nuisance Smell. The claimants had complained that the defendant company, Norton Aluminium Ltd, had caused nuisance by the emission of odour, noise, and particulate matter-dust from its foundry to which the claimants lived close by to as residential residents. The Queen's Bench Division held, inter alia, that the claimants had failed to establish a legal nuisance by way of dust and noise emanating from the foundry but had established an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their properties by reason of odour for a period beginning in mid 2003 and ending in mid 2010.
Town and country planning Change of use. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appellant's appeal against the Secretary of State's appointed inspector's decision to uphold an enforcement notice issued by the first respondent local authority, held, inter alia, that the appellant had breached planning control due to the appellant not seeking planning permission prior to the change of use a property.
Environment Waste. The Administrative Court held that the claimant metal recycling company would be entitled to an order quashing a notice made against it suspending its operations on the ground of noise, where the notice had failed to explain the steps that the claimant could take for the notice to be lifted to a sufficient degree.
R (on the application of Save Woolley Valley Action Group Ltd) v Bath and North East Somerset Council
Judicial review Application for judicial review. The Administrative Court of the Queen's Bench Division allowed judicial review of two planning decisions in relation to environmental impact assessments of a site and thereby interpreted:(i) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; (ii) certain provisions of the Environmental Impact Directive (EEC) 85-337; and (iii) certain provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations, .
Town and country planning Development. The Administrative Court held that a decision to grant planning permission had been unlawful in circumstances where no reasonable planning authority would have proceeded to grant permission without a condition addressing the contaminated land issues in the face of the advice of the Secretary of State and its own environmental health officer, absent a good reason for doing so.
Environment Protection. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, allowed an appeal against conviction where the judge's direction amounted to a fundamental misdirection as to the statutory requirements of an offence pursuant to s33 of the and where he had wrongly admitted evidence of co-defendants' guilty pleas to a related offence.
Environment - Waste - Deposit of controlled waste - Respondents moving waste found at entrance to property - Appellant authority bringing information against respondents for depositing controlled waste without waste management licence - Justices finding movement of waste not amounting to deposit - Whether deposit for purposes of offence - . . The Divisional Court, in dismissing an appeal, held that, on the facts as found by the justices, controlled waste that had been illegally deposited by a third party and subsequently moved by the respondents, in order to clear a route to gain access to their own property, to the public verge, had not amounted to a deposit for the purposes of of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Environment Protection. The Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, held that it was not necessary to imply into reg17 (1) and (4) of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, SI1994-1056, words to the effect that an exemption under Sch3 to the was deemed to comply with the objectives identified in para4 (1)(a) of Sch4 to the Act. It was been a matter for the jury to decide whether in the circumstances of the activity as they found them to be, the defendants had met the requirements of reg17.
R (on the application of Berry & Marshall (Bolton Wood) Ltd) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others
Town and country planning Development. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, found that the judge had been right to dismiss a statutory challenge to the refusal by a planning inspector of a pollution prevention and control permit for tipping of waste on a site.