Friends of the Earth Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v North Yorkshire County Council & Anor [2016] EWHC 3303 (Admin) (20 December 2016)

Friends of the Earth Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v North Yorkshire County Council & Anor [2016] EWHC 3303 (Admin) (20 December 2016)

The Council acted lawfully in not requiring the EIA to assess climate change impacts from burning gas at Knapton, as these emissions were regulated by separate permits and not part of the development under consideration. The Council did not misdirect itself in law regarding financial bonds, as planning conditions...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3303 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Friends of the Earth Limited; Claimant: Frack Free Ryedale (by David Davis and Jackie Cray); Defendant: North Yorkshire County Council; Interested Party: Third Energy UK Gas Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing (rolled Up)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Climate Change, Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking), Financial Bonds in Planning, Judicial Review Procedure
Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Climate Change Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking) Financial Bonds in Planning +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Friends of the Earth Limited

Claimant

Frack Free Ryedale (by David Davis and Jackie Cray)

Claimant

North Yorkshire County Council

Defendant

Third Energy UK Gas Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing (rolled Up)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council unlawfully failed to assess indirect/secondary/cumulative climate change impacts from burning gas at Knapton in the EIA process.
  2. 2 Whether the Council misdirected itself in law regarding the ability to require a financial bond for long-term environmental pollution impacts.

Ratio Decidendi

The Council acted lawfully in not requiring the EIA to assess climate change impacts from burning gas at Knapton, as these emissions were regulated by separate permits and not part of the development under consideration. The Council did not misdirect itself in law regarding financial bonds, as planning conditions were an adequate mechanism for restoration and aftercare, and a financial guarantee was not justified on the facts.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed