Preston New Road Action Group v Frackman & Ors

Preston New Road Action Group v Frackman & Ors

The Inspector and Secretary of State lawfully interpreted and applied the relevant planning policies, including CS5, DM2, EP11, and NPPF 109, in their proper context and with appropriate planning judgment. The Environmental Statement was legally adequate and did not require assessment of speculative future impacts beyond the scope of the application. There was no procedural unfairness as the issue of EP11's applicability was aired during the inquiry and the claimants had opportunity to address it. The decision to grant permission was not irrational in light of the regulatory regime and available evidence, and the precautionary principle did not require refusal. All grounds of challenge...

Parties
First Claimant: Preston New Road Action Group (Through Mrs Susan Holliday); Second Claimant: Gayzer Frackman; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Lancashire County Council; Third Defendant: Cuadrilla Bowland Limited; Fourth Defendant: Cuadrilla Elswick Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Claims dismissed. Permission to apply for judicial review refused on Ground 2 of the second claimant; permission granted but claims dismissed on all other grounds.
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Environmental Impact Assessment (eia), Procedural Fairness, Interpretation of Planning Policy, Precautionary Principle, Judicial Review
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Environmental Impact Assessment (eia) Procedural Fairness Interpretation of Planning Policy Precautionary Principle +1 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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Preston New Road Action Group (Through Mrs Susan Holliday)

First Claimant

Gayzer Frackman

Second Claimant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Lancashire County Council

Second Defendant

Cuadrilla Bowland Limited

Third Defendant

Cuadrilla Elswick Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector and Secretary of State lawfully interpreted and applied relevant planning policies (CS5, DM2, EP11, NPPF 109)
  2. 2 Whether the Environmental Statement was legally adequate regarding cumulative and indirect effects
  3. 3 Whether there was procedural unfairness regarding the Statement of Common Ground and the developer's position on policy EP11

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector and Secretary of State lawfully interpreted and applied the relevant planning policies, including CS5, DM2, EP11, and NPPF 109, in their proper context and with appropriate planning judgment. The Environmental Statement was legally adequate and did not require assessment of speculative future impacts beyond the scope of the application. There was no procedural unfairness as the issue of EP11's applicability was aired during the inquiry and the claimants had opportunity to address it. The decision to grant permission was not irrational in light of the regulatory regime and available evidence, and the precautionary principle did not require refusal. All grounds of challenge...

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed. Permission to apply for judicial review refused on Ground 2 of the second claimant; permission granted but claims dismissed on all other grounds.

Orders

  • First claimant's claim dismissed
  • Second claimant's claim dismissed