Evans v First Secretary of State & Ors

Evans v First Secretary of State & Ors

The Secretary of State's screening direction that the development was not EIA development was conclusive and remained in force; therefore, the Inspector was not required to consider or require an EIA, and Regulation 9(2) was not triggered. The claimant's application had no real prospect of success.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Steven Evans; Defendant: First Secretary of State; Defendant: The London Metropolitan University; Defendant: The London Borough of Islington
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the University; claimant's application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Summary Judgment, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Summary Judgment Judicial Review

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Evans

Claimant

First Secretary of State

Defendant

The London Metropolitan University

Defendant

The London Borough of Islington

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by failing to consider or require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) before granting planning permission
  2. 2 Whether Regulation 9(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 imposed a duty on the Inspector to refer the EIA question to the Secretary of State

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State's screening direction that the development was not EIA development was conclusive and remained in force; therefore, the Inspector was not required to consider or require an EIA, and Regulation 9(2) was not triggered. The claimant's application had no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the University; claimant's application dismissed.

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered for the London Metropolitan University under CPR Part 24.
  • The application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is dismissed.