Gibson, R (on the application of) v Harrow District Council [2013] EWHC 3449 (Admin) (07 November 2013)

Gibson, R (on the application of) v Harrow District Council [2013] EWHC 3449 (Admin) (07 November 2013)

The Council did not breach its obligations under the Directive or Regulations by failing to conduct a new EIA screening for the fourth application, as the development was materially identical to the third application, which had already been screened. The failure to place the screening opinion on the planning register was a breach of Regulation 23(1), but this did not justify quashing the planning permission as it did not cause substantial prejudice. The Council properly considered and balanced relevant planning policies, and the planning obligation secured sufficient public benefit to justify the grant of permission.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3449 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Peter Gibson; Defendant: Harrow District Council; Interested Party: Parish of St George Headstone
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Open Space Policy, Affordable Housing, Judicial Review Procedure
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Open Space Policy Affordable Housing Judicial Review Procedure

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Gibson

Claimant

Harrow District Council

Defendant

Parish of St George Headstone

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council breached obligations regarding Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under EU Directive 85/337/EEC and the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Assessment) Regulations 2011
  2. 2 Whether the Council failed to properly consider and apply relevant planning policies, including open space protection and affordable housing provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The Council did not breach its obligations under the Directive or Regulations by failing to conduct a new EIA screening for the fourth application, as the development was materially identical to the third application, which had already been screened. The failure to place the screening opinion on the planning register was a breach of Regulation 23(1), but this did not justify quashing the planning permission as it did not cause substantial prejudice. The Council properly considered and balanced relevant planning policies, and the planning obligation secured sufficient public benefit to justify the grant of permission.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed