Baker, R (on the application of) v Bath and North East Somerset Council

Baker, R (on the application of) v Bath and North East Somerset Council

The court quashed the Defendant's negative screening opinions of 7 August 2009 as unlawful due to lack of proper authorisation. The court declined to make a mandatory order requiring the Defendant to take enforcement action or issue a stop notice, finding that the screening process had not yet determined whether the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Louisa Baker; Defendant: Bath and North East Somerset Council; Interested Party: Hinton Organics (Wessex) Limited; Interested Party: Hinton Organics Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim partly allowed, partly dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Enforcement Action, Judicial Review
Environmental Law Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Enforcement Action Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louisa Baker

Claimant

Bath and North East Somerset Council

Defendant

Hinton Organics (Wessex) Limited

Interested Party

Hinton Organics Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's negative screening opinions of 7 August 2009 should be quashed as unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant should be compelled by mandatory order to take enforcement action against the Interested Parties for alleged breaches of planning control
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's failure to take enforcement action is unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The court quashed the Defendant's negative screening opinions of 7 August 2009 as unlawful due to lack of proper authorisation. The court declined to make a mandatory order requiring the Defendant to take enforcement action or issue a stop notice, finding that the screening process had not yet determined whether the development was EIA development, that many alleged breaches were outside planning control, and that the Defendant's actions and delays were not irrational or unlawful in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Claim partly allowed, partly dismissed

Orders

  • The Defendant's negative screening opinions of 7 August 2009 are quashed as unlawful.
  • The application for a mandatory order requiring enforcement action is dismissed.