Champion, R (on the application of) v North Norfolk District Council & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1657 (18 December 2013)

Champion, R (on the application of) v North Norfolk District Council & Ors [2013] EWCA Civ 1657 (18 December 2013)

There was no legal inconsistency in the Council's decision to grant planning permission without an EIA or Appropriate Assessment while imposing precautionary conditions for water quality monitoring. The conditions were imposed for reassurance and did not imply a likelihood of significant adverse effects. The Council's decision-making process, though flawed at the screening stage, ultimately addressed all relevant concerns and provided sufficient information for a lawful decision. The deputy judge's order quashing the planning permission was therefore set aside.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 1657
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Matthew Champion; Defendant/first Appellant: North Norfolk District Council; Interested Party/second Appellant: Crisp Malting Group Limited; Interested Party: Natural England
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order quashing planning permission set aside.
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Appropriate Assessment, Planning Permission, Habitats Directive, Town and Country Planning, Judicial Review, Planning Conditions
Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Law Environmental Impact Assessment Appropriate Assessment Planning Permission Habitats Directive Town and Country Planning +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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Champion

Claimant/respondent

North Norfolk District Council

Defendant/first Appellant

Crisp Malting Group Limited

Interested Party/second Appellant

Natural England

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's decision to grant planning permission without an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or Appropriate Assessment was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the imposition of planning conditions relating to water quality monitoring was inconsistent with the decision not to require an EIA or Appropriate Assessment
  3. 3 Whether the Council's decision-making process was legally adequate in considering environmental effects

Ratio Decidendi

There was no legal inconsistency in the Council's decision to grant planning permission without an EIA or Appropriate Assessment while imposing precautionary conditions for water quality monitoring. The conditions were imposed for reassurance and did not imply a likelihood of significant adverse effects. The Council's decision-making process, though flawed at the screening stage, ultimately addressed all relevant concerns and provided sufficient information for a lawful decision. The deputy judge's order quashing the planning permission was therefore set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order quashing planning permission set aside.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the deputy judge's order are set aside.
  • Consequential matters to be addressed by counsel in writing.