Champion, R (on the application of) v North Norfolk District Council & Ors

Champion, R (on the application of) v North Norfolk District Council & Ors

There was no legal inconsistency in the Council's decision to grant planning permission without an EIA or Appropriate Assessment while imposing water quality monitoring conditions, as the conditions were precautionary and for reassurance, not because a likelihood of significant adverse effects was found. The Committee was properly informed and able to lawfully conclude that no EIA or Appropriate Assessment was required.

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; High Court order quashing planning permission set aside.
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Appropriate Assessment, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Habitats Directive, EIA Directive, Planning Conditions
Environmental Law Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Impact Assessment Appropriate Assessment Planning Permission Judicial Review Habitats Directive +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 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 water quality monitoring conditions was inconsistent with the decision that no EIA or Appropriate Assessment was required
  3. 3 Whether the Council's decision-making process was legally adequate

Ratio Decidendi

There was no legal inconsistency in the Council's decision to grant planning permission without an EIA or Appropriate Assessment while imposing water quality monitoring conditions, as the conditions were precautionary and for reassurance, not because a likelihood of significant adverse effects was found. The Committee was properly informed and able to lawfully conclude that no EIA or Appropriate Assessment was required.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order quashing planning permission set aside.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the deputy judge’s order are set aside.
  • Claim for judicial review is dismissed.