Catt, R (on the application of) v Brighton & Hove City Council

Catt, R (on the application of) v Brighton & Hove City Council

The City Council's screening opinions in October 2011, August 2012, and November 2012 lawfully considered the project as a whole, did not unlawfully split the project, reasonably concluded no significant environmental effects were likely, properly applied guidance and mitigation principles, and any flaw in the June...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: John Catt; Defendant: Brighton & Hove City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claims dismissed; permission to apply for judicial review granted in second claim but substantive relief denied.
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Screening Opinions, Judicial Review, Mitigation Measures, Project Splitting, Local Authority Discretion
Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Screening Opinions Judicial Review Mitigation Measures +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Catt

Claimant

Brighton & Hove City Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the City Council failed to consider the scheme as a whole in screening for EIA
  2. 2 Whether the City Council unlawfully split the project into discrete developments
  3. 3 Whether the City Council unreasonably concluded that the development would not likely have significant environmental effects

Ratio Decidendi

The City Council's screening opinions in October 2011, August 2012, and November 2012 lawfully considered the project as a whole, did not unlawfully split the project, reasonably concluded no significant environmental effects were likely, properly applied guidance and mitigation principles, and any flaw in the June 2011 screening did not warrant quashing the August 2011 permission as no substantial prejudice occurred.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed; permission to apply for judicial review granted in second claim but substantive relief denied.

Orders

  • August 2011 planning permission not quashed.
  • Second claim for judicial review dismissed.