Condron, R (on the application of) v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council & Ors [2009] EWHC 1621 (Admin) (01 May 2009)

Condron, R (on the application of) v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council & Ors [2009] EWHC 1621 (Admin) (01 May 2009)

The planning permissions did not fall within the categories of development in Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations requiring a screening assessment, as the disposal point was not an extractive industry or urban development project, nor was it an extension of the Ffos-y-fran opencast mining project. There was no arguable error of law by the authorities in not conducting a screening assessment. The claim was also out of time and delay was not adequately explained, justifying refusal of permission.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1621 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Elizabeth Condron; First Defendant: Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council; Second Defendant: Caerphilly County Borough Council; Interested Party: Miller Argent (South West) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission
Outcome
Permission refused
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Judicial Review Procedure, Planning Permission, Screening Assessment, Delay in Judicial Review, Venue of Proceedings, Costs in Public Law Cases
Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Law Environmental Impact Assessment Judicial Review Procedure Planning Permission Screening Assessment Delay in Judicial Review +2 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Condron

Claimant

Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council

First Defendant

Caerphilly County Borough Council

Second Defendant

Miller Argent (South West) Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Renewed Application for Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning authorities were required to carry out a screening assessment under the EIA Directive and Regulations for the challenged planning permissions
  2. 2 Whether the authorities failed to consider the cumulative effect of the disposal point project and the proposed variation of condition 37 at Ffos-y-fran
  3. 3 Whether delay in bringing the claim justified refusal of permission

Ratio Decidendi

The planning permissions did not fall within the categories of development in Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations requiring a screening assessment, as the disposal point was not an extractive industry or urban development project, nor was it an extension of the Ffos-y-fran opencast mining project. There was no arguable error of law by the authorities in not conducting a screening assessment. The claim was also out of time and delay was not adequately explained, justifying refusal of permission.

Court Disposition

Permission refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to apply for judicial review refused
  • Claimant to pay costs of the defendants, with costs split according to periods of public funding and subject to further written submissions on the date from which costs protection applies