Heard v Broadland District Council & Ors

Heard v Broadland District Council & Ors

The JCS failed to comply with the requirements of Directive 2001/42/EC and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 because it did not provide an outline of the reasons for the selection of alternatives at each stage, nor did it assess reasonable alternatives on a comparable basis to the preferred option. The failure to provide this information meant the public could not ascertain why certain alternatives were selected or rejected, particularly regarding a non-NEGT growth scenario and the uncertainty over the NDR. The JCS was not required to assess the NDR itself, as it was outside the statutory competence of the Defendants and had been assessed in other plans...

Parties
Claimant: Mr 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 / Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; relief to be determined after further submissions.
Legal Topics
Strategic Environmental Assessment, Development Plan Documents, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Directive 2001/42/ec, Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004
Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Law Strategic Environmental Assessment Development Plan Documents Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Directive 2001/42/ec Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Heard

Claimant

Broadland District Council

Defendant

South Norfolk District Council

Defendant

Norwich City Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) was adopted in compliance with the requirements for Strategic Environmental Assessment under Directive 2001/42/EC and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004
  2. 2 Whether the JCS failed to assess reasonable alternatives and provide outline reasons for their selection as required by law
  3. 3 Whether the JCS unlawfully failed 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 Directive 2001/42/EC and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 because it did not provide an outline of the reasons for the selection of alternatives at each stage, nor did it assess reasonable alternatives on a comparable basis to the preferred option. The failure to provide this information meant the public could not ascertain why certain alternatives were selected or rejected, particularly regarding a non-NEGT growth scenario and the uncertainty over the NDR. The JCS was not required to assess the NDR itself, as it was outside the statutory competence of the Defendants and had been assessed in other plans...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; relief to be determined after further submissions.