In R (on the application of Lyon) v Cambridge City Council [201] EWHC 2684 (Admin) the claimant principally sought permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of the defendant to grant planning permission for the demolition of an existing sports pavilion, at a Sixth Form College, and the relocation and erection nearby of a new sports pavilion with associated open storage. (The claimant was one of a number of local residents, who had objected to the proposals.) The court refused permission on all four of the claimant’s grounds, but the first of those grounds raised a point of interest in relation to the meaning of the term “urban development project” for the purposes of environmental impact assessment.
The claimant contended that that the development was a Schedule 2 development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. It was a development, other than an exempt development, of a description mentioned in Column 1 of the table in Schedule 2 that, while not being carried out in a sensitive area, did exceed or meet, respectively, the applicable threshold or criterion in the corresponding part of Column 2.
In R (on the application of Lyon) v Cambridge City Council [201] EWHC 2684 (Admin) the claimant principally sought permission to apply for judicial review of a decision of the defendant to grant planning permission for the demolition of an existing sports pavilion, at a Sixth Form College, and the relocation and erection nearby of a new sports pavilion with associated open storage. (The claimant was one of a number of local residents, who had objected to the proposals.) The court refused permission on all four of the claimant’s grounds, but the first of those grounds raised a point of interest in relation to the meaning of the term “urban development project” for the purposes of environmental impact assessment.
The claimant contended that that the development was a Schedule 2 development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. It was a development, other than an exempt development, of a description mentioned in Column 1 of the table in Schedule 2 that, while not being carried out in a sensitive area, did exceed or meet, respectively, the applicable threshold or criterion in the corresponding part of Column 2.
He relied upon paragraph 10(b) of Schedule 2. Paragraph 10 is headed “Infrastructure Projects”. Paragraph 10(b) deals with “Urban development projects, including the construction of shopping centres and car parks, sports stadiums, leisure centres and multiplex cinemas”. (The area of the development must exceed 0.5 hectares.) Accordingly, a screening opinion should have been issued.
The judge rejected this argument, and held that the development did not constitute an “urban development project” for this purpose. He felt unable to accept that the construction of a small sports pavilion on a small sports pitch could be classed as an “Infrastructure Project” as envisaged by paragraph 10. Furthermore, for the purpose of paragraph 10(b) the sports pavilion was a far cry from a sports stadium or a leisure centre. He pointed out that this view was supported by the European Commission’s Guidance on the interpretation of such definitions in this context. That advises that the term “infrastructure” is widely interpreted, and may include roads, power and other utilities service to facilitate the growth of industries.
Quite separately, the judge also came to the conclusion that as a question of fact the area of the development did not exceed 0.5 hectares
John Martin
