Preston, R (On the Application Of) v Cumbria County Council [2019] EWHC 1362 (Admin) (31 May 2019)

Preston, R (On the Application Of) v Cumbria County Council [2019] EWHC 1362 (Admin) (31 May 2019)

The Defendant's grant of planning permission was unlawful because the development constituted Schedule 2 development in a sensitive area under the EIA Regulations, requiring a screening opinion which was not undertaken, and because no appropriate assessment was carried out under the Habitats Regulations despite the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1362 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Christopher Preston; Defendant: Cumbria County Council; Interested Party: United Utilities Water Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; planning permission quashed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Habitats Regulations, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Screening Opinion, Appropriate Assessment
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Environmental Impact Assessment Habitats Regulations Planning Permission Judicial Review Screening Opinion +1 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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Preston

Claimant

Cumbria County Council

Defendant

United Utilities Water Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's grant of planning permission was unlawful for failure to undertake a screening opinion under the EIA Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant failed to carry out an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's grant of planning permission was unlawful because the development constituted Schedule 2 development in a sensitive area under the EIA Regulations, requiring a screening opinion which was not undertaken, and because no appropriate assessment was carried out under the Habitats Regulations despite the potential for significant effects from the discharge through the temporary outfall. The existence of Environment Agency controls did not absolve the Defendant of its statutory duties under these regimes.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; planning permission quashed

Orders

  • The planning permission granted by the Defendant on 17 October 2018 is quashed.