Brown, R (on the application of) v Stobart Air Ltd

Brown, R (on the application of) v Stobart Air Ltd

The grant of planning permission was unlawful because the environmental effects of the airport works, which were secured by the Section 106 Agreement and formed part of the cumulative effects of the development, were not assessed in the Environmental Statement as required by regulation 3(2) of the EIA Regulations. There were no exceptional circumstances justifying the court's refusal to quash the permission.

Parties
Claimant: Thomas Gordon Brown; Defendant: Carlisle City Council; Interested Party: Stobart Air Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal Against Refusal of Permission for Judicial Review; Substantive Application Heard by Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; planning permission quashed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Section 106 Agreements, Development Plan Compliance, Judicial Review
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Section 106 Agreements Development Plan Compliance Judicial Review

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Gordon Brown

Claimant

Carlisle City Council

Defendant

Stobart Air Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal Against Refusal of Permission for Judicial Review; Substantive Application Heard by Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of planning permission was unlawful for failure to comply with regulation 3(2) of the EIA Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the environmental effects of airport works should have been assessed as cumulative effects of the development
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise discretion to refuse relief despite a breach of the EIA Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The grant of planning permission was unlawful because the environmental effects of the airport works, which were secured by the Section 106 Agreement and formed part of the cumulative effects of the development, were not assessed in the Environmental Statement as required by regulation 3(2) of the EIA Regulations. There were no exceptional circumstances justifying the court's refusal to quash the permission.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; planning permission quashed

Orders

  • Planning permission dated 12th March 2009 is quashed