Champion v North Norfolk District Council & Anor

Champion v North Norfolk District Council & Anor

The Council's decision to grant planning permission without an EIA or Appropriate Assessment was irrational and internally inconsistent, as it imposed conditions premised on a risk of pollution while simultaneously deciding there was no relevant risk. The decision must be quashed. Natural England applied the correct legal standard and the claim against it is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Matthew Champion; Defendant: North Norfolk District Council; Defendant: Natural England; Interested Party: Crisp Maltings Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Council's decision quashed; claim against Natural England dismissed
Legal Topics
Habitats Directive, EIA Directive, Local Government Functions, Planning Permission, Appropriate Assessment, Protective Costs Order
Environmental Law Administrative Law Planning Law Habitats Directive EIA Directive Local Government Functions Planning Permission Appropriate Assessment +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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Champion

Claimant

North Norfolk District Council

Defendant

Natural England

Defendant

Crisp Maltings Group Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's Development Control Committee had legal power to decide not to obtain an Appropriate Assessment or EIA
  2. 2 Whether the Council's decision to grant planning permission without an EIA or Appropriate Assessment was irrational or internally inconsistent
  3. 3 Whether Natural England applied the correct legal standard in deciding not to require an Appropriate Assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The Council's decision to grant planning permission without an EIA or Appropriate Assessment was irrational and internally inconsistent, as it imposed conditions premised on a risk of pollution while simultaneously deciding there was no relevant risk. The decision must be quashed. Natural England applied the correct legal standard and the claim against it is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Council's decision quashed; claim against Natural England dismissed

Orders

  • The Council's decision dated 13 September 2011 is quashed.
  • The relevant body must reconsider whether there is a risk of pollutants entering the river and act accordingly.