Candlish, R (on the application of) v Hastings Borough Council

Candlish, R (on the application of) v Hastings Borough Council

The 1999 Regulations require the EIA assessment to be made by reference to the specific planning application. The application for Phase 1 did not exceed the relevant thresholds, was not in a sensitive area, and the Regulations lawfully implement the Directive, including consideration of cumulative effects at the threshold-setting stage. The Council's decision not to require EIA was lawful.

Parties
Claimant: Carol Candlish; Defendant: Hastings Borough Council; Interested Party: Hastings and Bexhill Renaissance Limited (Sea Space)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Judicial Review, Interpretation of Regulations, Planning Permission, EU Law Implementation
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Environmental Impact Assessment Judicial Review Interpretation of Regulations Planning Permission EU Law Implementation

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carol Candlish

Claimant

Hastings Borough Council

Defendant

Hastings and Bexhill Renaissance Limited (Sea Space)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of planning permission for Phase 1 of the Ore Valley project required an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, considering its relationship to a wider development project.

Ratio Decidendi

The 1999 Regulations require the EIA assessment to be made by reference to the specific planning application. The application for Phase 1 did not exceed the relevant thresholds, was not in a sensitive area, and the Regulations lawfully implement the Directive, including consideration of cumulative effects at the threshold-setting stage. The Council's decision not to require EIA was lawful.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed