Heard v Broadland District Council & Ors [2012] EWHC 344 (Admin) (24 February 2012)

Heard v Broadland District Council & Ors [2012] EWHC 344 (Admin) (24 February 2012)

The JCS failed to comply with the requirements of the SEA Directive and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 because it did not provide an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives considered at each stage, nor did it assess reasonable alternatives on a comparable basis to the preferred option. The failure to provide this information constituted a breach of the Directive and Regulations. However, the JCS was not required to assess the environmental impact of the NDR or alternatives to it, as the NDR was outside the statutory competence of the Defendants and had been assessed in other statutory plans.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 344 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Heard; Defendant: Broadland District Council; Defendant: South Norfolk District Council; Defendant: Norwich City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claimant succeeds on Ground 1 (failure to provide reasons and comparable assessment of alternatives); Claimant fails on Ground 2 (no requirement to assess NDR in JCS). Relief to be determined after further submissions.
Legal Topics
Strategic Environmental Assessment, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, Development Plan Documents, Sustainability Appraisal, Public Consultation, Directive 2001/42/ec
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Strategic Environmental Assessment Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 Development Plan Documents Sustainability Appraisal +2 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heard

Claimant

Broadland District Council

Defendant

South Norfolk District Council

Defendant

Norwich City Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) complied with the requirements for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) under Directive 2001/42/EC and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, specifically regarding the identification, explanation, and assessment of reasonable alternatives to the preferred development option, and whether the JCS was required to assess the environmental impact of the Northern Distributor Road (NDR) or alternatives to it.

Ratio Decidendi

The JCS failed to comply with the requirements of the SEA Directive and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 because it did not provide an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives considered at each stage, nor did it assess reasonable alternatives on a comparable basis to the preferred option. The failure to provide this information constituted a breach of the Directive and Regulations. However, the JCS was not required to assess the environmental impact of the NDR or alternatives to it, as the NDR was outside the statutory competence of the Defendants and had been assessed in other statutory plans.

Court Disposition

Claimant succeeds on Ground 1 (failure to provide reasons and comparable assessment of alternatives); Claimant fails on Ground 2 (no requirement to assess NDR in JCS). Relief to be determined after further submissions.