Ardagh Glass Ltd v Chester City Council & Anor

Ardagh Glass Ltd v Chester City Council & Anor

The Councils erred in law by failing to consider the real possibility that immunity could arise for parts of the Quinn Glass development before the totality was complete. The holistic approach in Sage does not require all elements of a complex development to be completed before immunity can arise for any part. The Councils must issue enforcement notices to prevent immunity and comply with the objectives of Directive 85/337/EEC. Retrospective planning permission for EIA development is not unlawful per se under English law, provided the objectives of the Directive are strictly observed and regularisation is exceptional.

Parties
Claimant: Ardagh Glass Limited; First Defendant: Chester City Council; Second Defendant: Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council; Interested Party: Quinn Glass Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application granted in part; mandatory order issued
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Planning Control, Environmental Impact Assessment (eia), Retrospective Planning Permission, Directive 85/337/eec, Judicial Review of Local Authority Discretion
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law European Union Law Enforcement of Planning Control Environmental Impact Assessment (eia) Retrospective Planning Permission Directive 85/337/eec +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ardagh Glass Limited

Claimant

Chester City Council

First Defendant

Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council

Second Defendant

Quinn Glass Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant Councils are required to take enforcement action against unlawful EIA development before immunity arises under the four-year rule
  2. 2 Whether retrospective planning permission for EIA development is lawful under domestic and EU law

Ratio Decidendi

The Councils erred in law by failing to consider the real possibility that immunity could arise for parts of the Quinn Glass development before the totality was complete. The holistic approach in Sage does not require all elements of a complex development to be completed before immunity can arise for any part. The Councils must issue enforcement notices to prevent immunity and comply with the objectives of Directive 85/337/EEC. Retrospective planning permission for EIA development is not unlawful per se under English law, provided the objectives of the Directive are strictly observed and regularisation is exceptional.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; mandatory order issued

Orders

  • Mandatory order to both Councils and their successors to issue, within 14 days, an enforcement notice in respect of the unlawful Quinn Glass development requiring removal of the buildings and cessation of activities.
  • No declaratory order made prohibiting retrospective planning permission.