Condron, R (on the application of) v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council & Ors

Condron, R (on the application of) v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council & Ors

The permissions did not fall within paragraph 2(e) or 10(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations as the CDP was not a surface industrial installation for the extraction of coal nor an urban development project. The law was acte clair and did not require reference to the CJEU. Even if the permissions had fallen within the scope, the delay in bringing proceedings would have justified refusal of permission to apply for judicial review.

Parties
Appellant: Elizabeth Condron; First Respondent: Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council; Second Respondent: Caerphilly County Borough Council; Interested Party: Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Appeal (from Refusal of Permission for Judicial Review)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Time Limits for Judicial Review, Interpretation of EU Directives
Environmental Law Planning Law Administrative Law European Union Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Judicial Review Time Limits for Judicial Review +1 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Condron

Appellant

Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council

First Respondent

Caerphilly County Borough Council

Second Respondent

Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Permission to Appeal (from Refusal of Permission for Judicial Review)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning permissions fall within paragraph 2(e) or 10(b) of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999
  2. 2 Whether the delay in bringing proceedings precludes the claim under domestic or EU law
  3. 3 Whether the court is obliged to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union

Ratio Decidendi

The permissions did not fall within paragraph 2(e) or 10(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations as the CDP was not a surface industrial installation for the extraction of coal nor an urban development project. The law was acte clair and did not require reference to the CJEU. Even if the permissions had fallen within the scope, the delay in bringing proceedings would have justified refusal of permission to apply for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; application dismissed.