Jones, R (on the application of) v Mansfield District Council & Anor

Jones, R (on the application of) v Mansfield District Council & Anor

The Council’s decision that an EIA was not required was a matter of planning judgment, properly exercised on the information available, and not irrational or unlawful. The court’s role is limited to Wednesbury review, not a full merits review. The Council had sufficient information to conclude that the development...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Dawn Jones; Respondent: Mansfield District Council and Another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning/environmental) / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment (eia), Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, EU Law Implementation
Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Law Environmental Impact Assessment (eia) Judicial Review Planning Permission Wednesbury Unreasonableness EU Law Implementation

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dawn Jones

Appellant

Mansfield District Council and Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning/environmental) / Appeal From Queen’s Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local planning authority acted lawfully in deciding that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was not required before granting outline planning permission for an industrial estate development.
  2. 2 Whether the court’s role is limited to Wednesbury review or a full merits review in such EIA screening decisions.
  3. 3 Whether the authority had sufficient information to make an informed judgment on the likelihood of significant environmental effects.

Ratio Decidendi

The Council’s decision that an EIA was not required was a matter of planning judgment, properly exercised on the information available, and not irrational or unlawful. The court’s role is limited to Wednesbury review, not a full merits review. The Council had sufficient information to conclude that the development was unlikely to have significant environmental effects, and did not unlawfully rely on post-permission conditions or undertakings as a surrogate for the EIA process.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; order as per draft order.