Younger Homes (Northern) Ltd. v First Secretary of State & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 1060 (30 June 2004)

Younger Homes (Northern) Ltd. v First Secretary of State & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 1060 (30 June 2004)

The screening opinion was lawfully made by an authorised officer under the Council's delegation scheme; procedural breaches in failing to notify the applicant and place the opinion on the register did not render the planning permission ultra vires as no substantial prejudice was shown; errors in the Council's evidence on delegation did not affect the substantive validity of the screening opinion; and the trial was fair despite the inaccuracies in the evidence.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1060
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Younger Homes (Northern) Limited; First Respondent/defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Respondent/defendant: Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court Administrative Court (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Delegation of Authority, Planning Permission, Procedural Compliance, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Environmental Impact Assessment Delegation of Authority Planning Permission Procedural Compliance Judicial Review

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Younger Homes (Northern) Limited

Claimant/appellant

First Secretary of State

First Respondent/defendant

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

Second Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court Administrative Court (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning permission was unlawful due to failure to make or consider making a screening direction under EIA Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the screening opinion was lawfully made by an authorised officer
  3. 3 Whether procedural breaches (failure to notify applicant and place screening opinion on register) rendered the permission ultra vires

Ratio Decidendi

The screening opinion was lawfully made by an authorised officer under the Council's delegation scheme; procedural breaches in failing to notify the applicant and place the opinion on the register did not render the planning permission ultra vires as no substantial prejudice was shown; errors in the Council's evidence on delegation did not affect the substantive validity of the screening opinion; and the trial was fair despite the inaccuracies in the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay the first respondent's costs, subject to detailed assessment
  • Costs order below undisturbed