Planning permission granted in respect of land of significant value to wildlife — Information provided by environmental agencies objecting to development of the site — Whether planning authority erred in failing to require environmental impact assessment — Appeal dismissed
The respondent council granted outline planning permission for the development of an industrial estate on land that was recognised by environmental agencies as being of potential importance for various species, including golden plovers, which are listed as being of high conservation concern, and bats, which are a protected species. After representations by the appellant, the council reconsidered the question of whether an environmental impact assessment was required; however, they concluded that it was not, and confirmed the grant of planning permission.
The appellant challenged that decision on the basis that it was made before the results of surveys on the bat and golden plover populations were known to the planning committee.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
It was common ground that the central question to be decided by the planning committee was whether the proposed development was likely to have a significant effect upon the environment. It was necessary to consider, therefore, whether the planning committee had sufficient information to enable it to form a sensible judgment on that issue. It would appear from the evidence that the committee was presented with such information and took a decision based upon it; such a course was lawfully open to them even though the information was not complete and the various agencies involved intended to conduct further surveys.
The degree of information necessary in order to decide whether an environmental impact assessment was required was not necessarily extensive at such an early stage in the proceedings. The council accepted that the development was likely to have some effect upon the golden plover population, but did not accept that such an effect would be significant. This conclusion was open to them based upon the overall tenor of the advice given by, inter alia, English Nature. There appeared to be no evidence of bat populations on the site. The council’s conclusion that an environmental impact assessment was not necessary was therefore reasonable and lawful in the circumstances.
David Wolfe (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers, of Birmingham) appeared for the claimant; John Steel QC and Sarah-Jane Davies (instructed by Browne Jacobson, of Nottingham) appeared for the defendants.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
