Mackman v The Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government Uttlesford District Council Redrow Homes (Eastern) Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 716 (09 July 2015)

Mackman v The Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government Uttlesford District Council Redrow Homes (Eastern) Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 716 (09 July 2015)

The screening opinion, when read fairly and in context, did consider cumulative impact and followed the statutory structure; the reasons given, though brief, were adequate for the circumstances of this straightforward case. There was no legal error justifying quashing the Inspector's decision.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 716
Parties
Appellant: Mackman; First Respondent: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Uttlesford District Council; Third Respondent: Redrow Homes (Eastern) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Screening Opinion, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Cumulative Impact, Adequacy of Reasons
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Opinion Planning Permission Judicial Review Cumulative Impact +1 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mackman

Appellant

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Uttlesford District Council

Second Respondent

Redrow Homes (Eastern) Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the screening opinion failed to consider cumulative environmental impact as required by law
  2. 2 Whether the reasons given for the screening opinion were adequate under the 2011 Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The screening opinion, when read fairly and in context, did consider cumulative impact and followed the statutory structure; the reasons given, though brief, were adequate for the circumstances of this straightforward case. There was no legal error justifying quashing the Inspector's decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed