Mackman v The Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government Uttlesford District Council Redrow Homes (Eastern) Ltd

Mackman v The Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government Uttlesford District Council Redrow Homes (Eastern) Ltd

The screening opinion, when read as a whole and in context, did consider cumulative impact as required by the EIA Regulations and provided adequate reasons for its conclusion. Even if there had been a defect, the court would exercise its discretion not to quash the Inspector’s decision due to lack of substantial prejudice and subsequent negative screening opinions expressly considering cumulative impact.

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
Judicial Review (planning) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
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

Judicial Review (planning) / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the screening opinion failed to consider cumulative impact as required by the EIA Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the reasons given for the screening opinion were adequate under regulation 4(7)(a) of the 2011 Regulations
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to quash the Inspector’s decision if the screening opinion was unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

The screening opinion, when read as a whole and in context, did consider cumulative impact as required by the EIA Regulations and provided adequate reasons for its conclusion. Even if there had been a defect, the court would exercise its discretion not to quash the Inspector’s decision due to lack of substantial prejudice and subsequent negative screening opinions expressly considering cumulative impact.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed