Jedwell v DH & Anor

Jedwell v DH & Anor

The Council failed to provide adequate reasons for its negative screening opinion as required by EU law, and did not cure this deficiency upon request before proceedings were commenced. The judge erred in refusing cross-examination of the planning officer, as it was necessary for justice to be done and seen to be done regarding whether the officer's witness statement reflected her reasoning at the time. The matter must be remitted for reconsideration with cross-examination allowed.

Parties
Appellant: Andrew Jedwell; First Respondent: Denbighshire County Council; Second Respondents: DH and DR Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Administrative Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to Administrative Court
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Duty to Give Reasons, EU Law Compliance
Environmental Law Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Judicial Review Duty to Give Reasons EU Law Compliance

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Jedwell

Appellant

Denbighshire County Council

First Respondent

DH and DR Jones

Second Respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From Administrative Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the screening opinion for planning permission was adequately reasoned under EU law
  2. 2 Whether the Council complied with its duty to provide reasons upon request
  3. 3 Whether late evidence by the planning officer could cure the deficiency

Ratio Decidendi

The Council failed to provide adequate reasons for its negative screening opinion as required by EU law, and did not cure this deficiency upon request before proceedings were commenced. The judge erred in refusing cross-examination of the planning officer, as it was necessary for justice to be done and seen to be done regarding whether the officer's witness statement reflected her reasoning at the time. The matter must be remitted for reconsideration with cross-examination allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted to Administrative Court

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated.
  • The case is remitted to the Administrative Court for reconsideration with cross-examination of the planning officer permitted.