In R (on the application of Long) v Monmouthshire County Council [2012] EWHC 3130 (Admin) the claimant, on behalf of a local community group, sought judicial review of a decision by the local planning authority (“LPA”) to grant planning permission for the demolition of a cattle market and the construction of a supermarket in its place. Her principal ground of challenge was that the decision was unlawful in that it was made contrary to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (“the Regulations”). Regulation 3 prohibits the granting of planning permission for a development that falls within Schedule 2 to the Regulations, and is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location, unless the environmental impact assessment procedures have been followed.
The LPA had concluded that the development came within Schedule 2, being an “urban development project” on a site in excess of 0.5 hectares. It carried out a screening exercise, involving various consultations and applying the selection criteria in Schedule 3, but concluded that the development was not likely to have significant effects on the environment. Accordingly, it issued a negative screening opinion, and later published detailed reasons supporting it. The court rejected this ground of challenge, on the facts, but helpfully set out as follows a number of principles identified in the relevant authorities.
In R (on the application of Long) v Monmouthshire County Council [2012] EWHC 3130 (Admin) the claimant, on behalf of a local community group, sought judicial review of a decision by the local planning authority (“LPA”) to grant planning permission for the demolition of a cattle market and the construction of a supermarket in its place. Her principal ground of challenge was that the decision was unlawful in that it was made contrary to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (“the Regulations”). Regulation 3 prohibits the granting of planning permission for a development that falls within Schedule 2 to the Regulations, and is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its nature, size or location, unless the environmental impact assessment procedures have been followed. The LPA had concluded that the development came within Schedule 2, being an “urban development project” on a site in excess of 0.5 hectares. It carried out a screening exercise, involving various consultations and applying the selection criteria in Schedule 3, but concluded that the development was not likely to have significant effects on the environment. Accordingly, it issued a negative screening opinion, and later published detailed reasons supporting it. The court rejected this ground of challenge, on the facts, but helpfully set out as follows a number of principles identified in the relevant authorities. (1) The decision as to whether a development is likely to have significant effects upon the environment is a matter of planning judgment for the decision maker, only reviewable on Wednesbury grounds. (2) A screening opinion does not involve a detailed assessment of factors relevant to the grant of planning permission, and does not require all considerations to be mentioned. (3) The decision taken on a screening opinion must be carefully and conscientiously considered, and must be based on information that is both sufficient and accurate. The opinion need not be elaborate, but it must demonstrate that the issues have been understood and considered. (4) As to reasons for the screening opinion, they can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. (5) In assessing possible environmental effects remediation measures can, to a certain extent, be taken into account. (6) The decision maker must have regard to the precautionary principle and to the degree of uncertainty, as to environmental impact, at the date of the decision. John Martin is a freelance writer
