Condron, R (on the application of) v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council & Ors

Condron, R (on the application of) v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council & Ors

The challenged planning permissions did not fall within the descriptions in Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations as extractive industry, urban development, or extension of Schedule 1 development. The authorities were not required to carry out a screening assessment. The disposal point and Ffos-y-fran sites were distinct, and there was no arguable failure to consider cumulative effects. The claim was also out of time and delay was not adequately explained. Permission for judicial review was refused.

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 for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Judicial Review Procedure, Planning Permission, Costs in Environmental Litigation
Environmental Law Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Impact Assessment Judicial Review Procedure Planning Permission Costs in Environmental Litigation

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 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 challenged planning permissions did not fall within the descriptions in Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations as extractive industry, urban development, or extension of Schedule 1 development. The authorities were not required to carry out a screening assessment. The disposal point and Ffos-y-fran sites were distinct, and there was no arguable failure to consider cumulative effects. The claim was also out of time and delay was not adequately explained. Permission for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Permission for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application for permission refused
  • Costs to be determined following written submissions