A local man opposed to the development of a lorry park and two silos at a maltings plant in Norfolk has met with final defeat at the Supreme Court.
Matthew Champion, a member of the Ryburgh Village Action Group, complained that North Norfolk district council failed to comply with the procedures required by the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Habitats Regulations when it approved the development to be carried out by Crisp Maltings Group at their Great Ryburgh plant.
The plans involve the erection of two silos for 3,000 tons of barley, and the construction of a lorry park with wash bay and ancillary facilities, on a site close to the River Wensum, designated as a special area of conservation (SAC).
The permission was quashed by the High Court in 2013, but that decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Now the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Champion’s appeal and ruled that the permission should stand, despite finding that the council’s screening exercise in April 2010 was legally defective as the pollution prevention measures had not been fully identified at that point, and so the council could not be satisfied then that mitigation measures would prevent a risk of pollutants entering the river.
Lord Carnwath said: “Although the proposal should have been subject to assessment under the EIA Regulations, that failure did not in the event prevent the fullest possible investigation of the proposal and the involvement of the public. There is no reason to think that a different process would have resulted in a different decision, and Mr Champion’s interests have not been prejudiced.”
He found that there was no need to refer the case to the European Court of Justice.
He added: “This was not a case where the environmental issues were of particular complexity or novelty. There was only one issue of substance: how to achieve adequate hydrological separation between the activities on the site and the river. It is a striking feature of the process that each of the statutory agencies involved was at pains to form its own view of the effectiveness of the proposed measures, and that final agreement was only achieved after a number of revisions. It is also clear from the final report that the public were fully involved in the process and their views were taken into account.
“It is notable also that Mr Champion himself, having been given the opportunity to raise any specific points of concern not covered by Natural England before the final decision, was unable to do so. That remains the case. That is not to put the burden of proof on to him, but rather to highlight the absence of anything of substance to set against the mass of material going the other way.”
R (on the application of Champion) v North Norfolk District Council and another Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson) 22 July 2015
Richard Buxton (instructed by Richard Buxton Environmental and Public Law) for the appellant
Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC and Zack Simons (instructed by Howes Percival) for the respondent
