Evans, R (on the application of) v Basingstoke And Deane Borough Council

Evans, R (on the application of) v Basingstoke And Deane Borough Council

The Council did not misdirect itself in law or act unreasonably in failing to impose conditions restricting production, nor in accepting the adequacy of the Environmental Statement and Addendum. The statutory immunity from enforcement under section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is not incompatible with EU law, as it satisfies the principles of certainty and effectiveness. The Council was not under a legal obligation to take enforcement or discontinuance action in respect of the existing use, and the claim for judicial review is dismissed on all grounds.

Parties
Claimant: Peter Evans; Defendant: Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council; Interested Party: Vitacress Salads Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment (eia), Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Directive 85/337/eec, Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Procedural Fairness, Enforcement Action, Limitation Periods
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law European Union Law Environmental Impact Assessment (eia) Planning Permission Judicial Review Directive 85/337/eec +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 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Evans

Claimant

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

Defendant

Vitacress Salads Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council lawfully failed to impose conditions restricting production at the site when granting planning permission.
  2. 2 Whether the Council failed to properly assess indirect and cumulative environmental effects as required by the EIA Directive and Regulations.
  3. 3 Whether the Council was obliged to take enforcement action or other remedial steps due to alleged unlawful existing use without EIA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Council did not misdirect itself in law or act unreasonably in failing to impose conditions restricting production, nor in accepting the adequacy of the Environmental Statement and Addendum. The statutory immunity from enforcement under section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is not incompatible with EU law, as it satisfies the principles of certainty and effectiveness. The Council was not under a legal obligation to take enforcement or discontinuance action in respect of the existing use, and the claim for judicial review is dismissed on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed