Smout v The Welsh Ministers & Ors

Smout v The Welsh Ministers & Ors

The Welsh Ministers, despite the lack of specific regulations for modification orders, lawfully considered and applied the EIA Directive, provided sufficient reasons for their decision, and complied with all relevant conditions and procedural requirements. There was no error of law or procedural unfairness...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Pauline Marie Smout; First Respondent: The Welsh Ministers; Second Respondent: Wrexham County Borough Council; Third Respondent: Cory Environmental (Central) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Modification Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Town and Country Planning, Modification Orders, Directive Transposition, Planning Permissions, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Environmental Impact Assessment Town and Country Planning Modification Orders Directive Transposition Planning Permissions +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pauline Marie Smout

Applicant

The Welsh Ministers

First Respondent

Wrexham County Borough Council

Second Respondent

Cory Environmental (Central) Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Modification Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the EIA Directive was properly transposed into UK law for modification orders
  2. 2 Whether the Welsh Ministers lawfully applied the Directive to the modification orders
  3. 3 Whether reasons given for not requiring an EIA were sufficient in law

Ratio Decidendi

The Welsh Ministers, despite the lack of specific regulations for modification orders, lawfully considered and applied the EIA Directive, provided sufficient reasons for their decision, and complied with all relevant conditions and procedural requirements. There was no error of law or procedural unfairness warranting quashing the modification orders.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to quash the modification orders is refused.