Kenyon v The Secretary of State for Housing Communities & Local Government [2020] EWCA Civ 302 (05 March 2020)

Kenyon v The Secretary of State for Housing Communities & Local Government [2020] EWCA Civ 302 (05 March 2020)

The Court held that the Secretary of State lawfully exercised planning judgment in concluding that the proposed development, given its scale, location, and context, was not likely to have significant effects on the environment and thus did not require an EIA. The screening direction properly considered cumulative...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] EWCA Civ 302
Parties
Appellant: James Kenyon; First Respondent: The Secretary of State for Housing Communities & Local Government; Second Respondent: Wakefield Council; Fourth Respondent: Hemsworth Town Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment (eia), Screening Direction, Cumulative Environmental Effects, Air Quality Management Areas (aqma), Judicial Review, Planning Permission
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Environmental Impact Assessment (eia) Screening Direction Cumulative Environmental Effects Air Quality Management Areas (aqma) Judicial Review +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Kenyon

Appellant

The Secretary of State for Housing Communities & Local Government

First Respondent

Wakefield Council

Second Respondent

Hemsworth Town Council

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State lawfully concluded that the proposed development was not likely to have significant effects on the environment and thus did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
  2. 2 Whether cumulative effects, particularly on air quality, were properly considered in the screening direction
  3. 3 Whether the proximity to an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) required a precautionary approach or further assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Secretary of State lawfully exercised planning judgment in concluding that the proposed development, given its scale, location, and context, was not likely to have significant effects on the environment and thus did not require an EIA. The screening direction properly considered cumulative effects, including on air quality and the AQMA, and provided adequate reasons. The appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law or irrationality in the decision or in the High Court's judgment upholding it.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the High Court's refusal of judicial review is upheld.