Friends of Basildon Golf Course v Basildon District Council & Anor [2009] EWHC 66 (Admin) (23 January 2009)

Friends of Basildon Golf Course v Basildon District Council & Anor [2009] EWHC 66 (Admin) (23 January 2009)

The Defendant lawfully concluded that an EIA was not required, had sufficient information for its screening opinion, was not under a duty to revisit the opinion after Natural England's response, properly considered whether the application was a county matter, and was not under a statutory duty to consult Essex County Council or consider waste policies in the SDP, as the main purpose was golf course improvement.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 66 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: The Friends of Basildon Golf Course; Defendant: Basildon District Council; Interested Party: Basildon Golf Centre Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Local Authority Powers, Judicial Review, Waste Management, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Local Authority Powers Judicial Review Waste Management +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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Friends of Basildon Golf Course

Claimant

Basildon District Council

Defendant

Basildon Golf Centre Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant lawfully determined that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was not required for the proposed development.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant failed to consult Essex County Council and consider waste policies in the Statutory Development Plan, rendering the planning permission unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant properly considered if the application should have been determined by the county planning authority.

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant lawfully concluded that an EIA was not required, had sufficient information for its screening opinion, was not under a duty to revisit the opinion after Natural England's response, properly considered whether the application was a county matter, and was not under a statutory duty to consult Essex County Council or consider waste policies in the SDP, as the main purpose was golf course improvement.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed