Marton -Cum -Grafton Parish Council), R (On the Application Of) v North Yorkshire County Council

Marton -Cum -Grafton Parish Council), R (On the Application Of) v North Yorkshire County Council

Neither the HM Treasury report nor the Leeds City Council planning reports constituted material considerations requiring referral to committee before the decision notice. The Environmental Statement was not required to include evidence of need or the likely effects of CHP pipes, as these were not probable or relevant to the environmental assessment at the time. The authority's decisions on the scope and adequacy of the Environmental Statement were matters of planning judgment and not irrational. No procedural or substantive error rendered the grant of planning permission unlawful.

Parties
Claimant: Marton-cum-Grafton Parish Council; Defendant: North Yorkshire County Council; First Interested Party: Ameycespa Limited; Second Interested Party: City of York Council; Third Interested Party: The Right Honourable Edward William Stephen Baron Mowbray Segrave and Stourton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed (substantive application refused); permission granted for grounds 1, 4, and 5, but refused for grounds 2 and 3.
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Material Considerations, Public Procurement
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Judicial Review Material Considerations Public Procurement

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marton-cum-Grafton Parish Council

Claimant

North Yorkshire County Council

Defendant

Ameycespa Limited

First Interested Party

City of York Council

Second Interested Party

The Right Honourable Edward William Stephen Baron Mowbray Segrave and Stourton

Third Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Rolled Up Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new material considerations arose between committee resolution and decision notice requiring reconsideration under s.70(2) TCPA 1990 and Kides principle
  2. 2 Whether the Environmental Statement complied with the EIA Directive and EIA Regulations regarding content and accessibility
  3. 3 Whether the exclusion of need and CHP pipe impacts from the Environmental Statement rendered the planning permission unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the HM Treasury report nor the Leeds City Council planning reports constituted material considerations requiring referral to committee before the decision notice. The Environmental Statement was not required to include evidence of need or the likely effects of CHP pipes, as these were not probable or relevant to the environmental assessment at the time. The authority's decisions on the scope and adequacy of the Environmental Statement were matters of planning judgment and not irrational. No procedural or substantive error rendered the grant of planning permission unlawful.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed (substantive application refused); permission granted for grounds 1, 4, and 5, but refused for grounds 2 and 3.