Where a proposed development falls within Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 – in terms of (i) matching one or more of the descriptions set out in Schedule 2; and (ii) meeting the applicable threshold and criteria, or being located in a sensitive area – a local planning authority (LPA) must decide whether the development is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its size, nature or location.
If it concludes that it is likely to have significant effects, the LPA must adopt a screening opinion. (Where the determination is by the secretary of state, the equivalent step is a screening direction.) The development is then an EIA development for the purposes of the regulations.
Where a proposed development falls within Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 – in terms of (i) matching one or more of the descriptions set out in Schedule 2; and (ii) meeting the applicable threshold and criteria, or being located in a sensitive area – a local planning authority (LPA) must decide whether the development is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its size, nature or location. If it concludes that it is likely to have significant effects, the LPA must adopt a screening opinion. (Where the determination is by the secretary of state, the equivalent step is a screening direction.) The development is then an EIA development for the purposes of the regulations. In R (on the application of Loader) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWHC 2010 (Admin); [2011] PLSCS 204, the claimant sought to quash a negative screening direction made by the secretary of state on the principal ground that he had misdirected himself on the meaning of “significant effects on the environment”. The claimant argued that for an effect to be “significant”, it simply had to be one of sufficient importance that it ought to be considered and influence the development consent decision. The court dismissed the application, holding that the approach and meaning contended for by the claimant were contrary to authority and wrong in principle. The judge pointed out that the claimant’s approach would transfer the focus from whether a project was likely to have significant effects on the environment to whether the effect was one that it was relevant to consider, and that might influence the development consent decision. A wide range of matters might be relevant to the latter decision and might influence it, notwithstanding that they could not have significant effects on the environment. Furthermore, the judge stated that the claimant’s submission would have the effect of substituting a new and lower test for that set out in the regulations. An environmental impact assessment would be required in most cases in which a development might possibly have some effects on the environment. Finally, he considered that it was not appropriate for the courts to lay down a single defined test of “significant effects on the environment” for application in all cases. John Martin is a freelance writer
