Kenyon v The Secretary of State for Housing Communities & Local Government

Kenyon v The Secretary of State for Housing Communities & Local Government

The Secretary of State lawfully concluded, on the evidence and in the exercise of planning judgment, that the proposed development was not likely to have significant effects on the environment, including cumulative effects on air quality, and thus an EIA was not required. The decision addressed all relevant criteria, considered the urban context appropriately, and did not misapply the precautionary principle. The High Court judge was correct to reject the judicial review challenge, and there was no error of law in her reasoning or conclusion.

Parties
Appellant: James Kenyon; First Respondent: The Secretary of State for Housing Communities & Local Government; Second Respondent: Wakefield Council; Third Respondent: Hemsworth Town Council; Fourth Respondent: Saul Construction Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Judicial Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment (eia), Judicial Review, Screening Direction, Cumulative Environmental Effects, Air Quality Management Areas (aqma), Precautionary Principle, Planning Permission
Environmental Law Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Impact Assessment (eia) Judicial Review Screening Direction Cumulative Environmental Effects Air Quality Management Areas (aqma) +2 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 14 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

Third Respondent

Saul Construction Ltd

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Judicial Review

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
  3. 3 Whether the precautionary principle was correctly applied

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State lawfully concluded, on the evidence and in the exercise of planning judgment, that the proposed development was not likely to have significant effects on the environment, including cumulative effects on air quality, and thus an EIA was not required. The decision addressed all relevant criteria, considered the urban context appropriately, and did not misapply the precautionary principle. The High Court judge was correct to reject the judicial review challenge, and there was no error of law in her reasoning or conclusion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upheld; no EIA required for the proposed development