Horner, R (on the application of) v Castle Cement Ltd.

Horner, R (on the application of) v Castle Cement Ltd.

The development did not fall within Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 EIA development as a waste disposal installation or as an extension to a cement works because it was integral to cement manufacture and did not exceed the relevant thresholds. The planning authority's consideration of EIA requirements, waste objectives, and local plan policies was lawful. Condition 3 was not irrational. The claim was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Horner; Defendant: Lancashire County Council; Interested Person: Castle Cement Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Waste Management, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Best Practical Environmental Option (bpeo)
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Environmental Impact Assessment Waste Management Planning Permission Judicial Review Best Practical Environmental Option (bpeo)

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Horner

Claimant

Lancashire County Council

Defendant

Castle Cement Limited

Interested Person

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the development required an Environmental Impact Assessment under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999
  2. 2 Whether the planning authority properly considered the relevant waste objectives and local plan policies, including BPEO
  3. 3 Whether condition 3 of the planning permission was irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The development did not fall within Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 EIA development as a waste disposal installation or as an extension to a cement works because it was integral to cement manufacture and did not exceed the relevant thresholds. The planning authority's consideration of EIA requirements, waste objectives, and local plan policies was lawful. Condition 3 was not irrational. The claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • Claimant to pay Lancashire County Council's costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed