Hargreaves v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2011] EWHC 1999 (Admin) (2 August 2011)

Hargreaves v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2011] EWHC 1999 (Admin) (2 August 2011)

The Inspector did not err in law or act irrationally by not remitting the screening direction for reconsideration, as no new material facts or misapprehension arose and the Secretary of State's direction was determinative. The Inspector lawfully considered mitigation measures as part of the project in both screening and Appropriate Assessment, consistent with domestic authority. Procedural fairness was satisfied as all parties had opportunity to make representations on the mitigation scheme. The challenge failed on all grounds.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1999 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Stephen Hargreaves; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Wyre Borough Council; Third Defendant: Cornwall Light and Power Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (s.288 TCPA Challenge) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment (eia), Habitats Directive, Appropriate Assessment, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Screening Direction, Mitigation Measures, Procedural Fairness
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law EU Law Environmental Impact Assessment (eia) Habitats Directive Appropriate Assessment Planning Permission +4 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Hargreaves

Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Wyre Borough Council

Second Defendant

Cornwall Light and Power Company Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (s.288 TCPA Challenge) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by failing to reconsider if the development required an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to conduct an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Directive
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector acted with procedural unfairness by not inviting further representations on mitigation measures

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector did not err in law or act irrationally by not remitting the screening direction for reconsideration, as no new material facts or misapprehension arose and the Secretary of State's direction was determinative. The Inspector lawfully considered mitigation measures as part of the project in both screening and Appropriate Assessment, consistent with domestic authority. Procedural fairness was satisfied as all parties had opportunity to make representations on the mitigation scheme. The challenge failed on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • Planning permission granted by the Inspector stands