Bateman, R (on the application of) v South Cambridgeshire District Council & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 157 (22 February 2011)

Bateman, R (on the application of) v South Cambridgeshire District Council & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 157 (22 February 2011)

The screening opinion failed to provide sufficiently clear reasons for concluding that an EIA was not required, particularly regarding traffic, landscape, and noise impacts; therefore, it did not comply with the requirements laid down in Mellor, rendering the grant of planning permission unlawful.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 157
Parties
Claimant/appellant: The Queen (on the application of Bateman); Defendant/respondent: South Cambridgeshire District Council; Interested Party: Camgrain Storage Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Claim for judicial review allowed (majority); grant of planning permission quashed.
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Screening Opinion, Adequacy of Reasons
Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Screening Opinion Adequacy of Reasons

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen (on the application of Bateman)

Claimant/appellant

South Cambridgeshire District Council

Defendant/respondent

Camgrain Storage Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the screening opinion issued by the Council complied with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations and Council Directive 85/337/EEC
  2. 2 Whether the grant of planning permission was unlawful due to inadequate reasoning in the screening opinion

Ratio Decidendi

The screening opinion failed to provide sufficiently clear reasons for concluding that an EIA was not required, particularly regarding traffic, landscape, and noise impacts; therefore, it did not comply with the requirements laid down in Mellor, rendering the grant of planning permission unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review allowed (majority); grant of planning permission quashed.

Orders

  • Grant of planning permission quashed
  • Claimants granted relief as sought