In Abbotskerswell Parish Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and others [2021] EWHC 555 (Admin); [2021] PLSCS 52 the High Court dismissed a challenge to grant of permission for a 1,200 dwelling urban extension to Newton Abbott in Teignbridge.
The applicants appealed against the council’s failure to determine an application for a major mixed-use scheme. Following the inspector’s recommendation that the appeal should be allowed, permission was granted in June 2020.
Abbotskerswell Parish Council challenged the secretary of state’s decision on the grounds that it was made:
- without any assessment of material environmental information relating to the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change;
- without having first obtained the requisite information required to assess the likely significant effects on biodiversity, in particular the greater horseshoe bat; and
- before first being satisfied that no development likely adversely to affect the integrity of the nearby Special Area of Conservation could be carried out under the permission.
On the first ground, the court found that the inspector acted rationally in rejecting the claimant’s argument that the environmental information provided was insufficient because it did not address greenhouse gas emissions. The impact on greenhouse gas emissions had been considered in the context of, among other documents, the local plan and the planning application accorded with the development plan. The site was considered highly sustainable and accorded with the strategy of reducing car travel, identified as a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
The judge acknowledged that, even if if there was an error of law in the inspector determining the appeal without sufficient information, she would have declined to quash the decision because it would inevitably have been the same, absent the legal error. The scheme accorded with the development plan, and the inspector concluded that the benefits attracted significant weight and would have outweighed harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions generated by the development.
On the lack of a sufficient biodiversity assessment, the court held that despite environmental effects being required to be taken into account at the earliest possible stage, the case law is clear that where national law provides for a multi-stage procedure, and the environmental effects are identified and assessed at outline stage, further assessment of environmental effects may be finalised at reserved matters stage. The secretary of state’s view that the relevant biodiversity information, namely identification of the location of greater horseshoe bat corridors and habitat would be most appropriately undertaken in conjunction with the proposals for the detailed design and layout of the development, was considered sound.
The court also dismissed the third ground as the claimant’s argument that all details of matters which could affect site integrity of the SAC must be assessed at outline stage would essentially require an application for full permission.
The inspector’s decision imposed a framework of planning conditions which set out clearly defined parameters for the approval of reserved matters which enabled the secretary of state to conclude, with sufficient certainty, that the proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC.
The judge’s view was that a series of legitimate planning judgments were made which were not capable of challenge on Wednesbury reasonable grounds.
Sejal Patel is an associate solicitor at Irwin Mitchell LLP
