Richardson & Anor, R (on the application of) v North Yorkshire County Council & Ors

Richardson & Anor, R (on the application of) v North Yorkshire County Council & Ors

The Council complied with regulation 3(2) of the EIA Regulations by stating in the notice of decision that environmental information was considered. However, it failed to comply with regulation 21(1) by not making available a statement of the main reasons for the decision, which is remedied by a mandatory order rather than quashing the permission. The Code of Conduct lawfully required Mr Richardson to withdraw due to a prejudicial interest, and this requirement was rational, proportionate, and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Parties
Claimants: Paul Richardson and Another; First Defendant: North Yorkshire County Council; Second Defendant: First Secretary of State; Interested Party: Brown and Potter Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment With Costs and Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Claim dismissed save for a mandatory order; permission to appeal granted.
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Local Authority Code of Conduct, Bias and Prejudicial Interest, Judicial Review Procedure, Costs, European Convention on Human Rights
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Human Rights Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Local Authority Code of Conduct Bias and Prejudicial Interest +3 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 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Richardson and Another

Claimants

North Yorkshire County Council

First Defendant

First Secretary of State

Second Defendant

Brown and Potter Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment With Costs and Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council complied with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, specifically regulations 3(2) and 21(1)
  2. 2 Whether the Council's Code of Conduct lawfully required Mr Richardson to withdraw from the meeting due to a prejudicial interest
  3. 3 Whether the Code of Conduct, as applied, was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Council complied with regulation 3(2) of the EIA Regulations by stating in the notice of decision that environmental information was considered. However, it failed to comply with regulation 21(1) by not making available a statement of the main reasons for the decision, which is remedied by a mandatory order rather than quashing the permission. The Code of Conduct lawfully required Mr Richardson to withdraw due to a prejudicial interest, and this requirement was rational, proportionate, and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed save for a mandatory order; permission to appeal granted.

Orders

  • Mandatory order requiring the Council to make available for public inspection the main reasons for its decision granting planning permission.
  • Claimants to pay 50% of the Council's costs (excluding permission hearing), Secretary of State's costs (excluding permission hearing), no order as to costs for the interested party.