Treagus, R (on the application of) v Suffolk County Council & Anor [2013] EWHC 950 (Admin) (24 April 2013)

Treagus, R (on the application of) v Suffolk County Council & Anor [2013] EWHC 950 (Admin) (24 April 2013)

The Council lawfully exercised its judgment in concluding that the development was not likely to have significant environmental effects and thus no EIA was required; the failure to require a bio-aerosol risk assessment was an error but not material given the change in policy and lack of real risk; Condition 11's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 950 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Karen Treagus; Defendant: Suffolk County Council; Interested Party: Kerstin Cecilia Gliksten (trading as The Denham Estate)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed except for partial relief on Condition 11
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Planning Conditions, Bio Aerosol Risk Assessment
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Judicial Review Planning Conditions Bio Aerosol Risk Assessment

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karen Treagus

Claimant

Suffolk County Council

Defendant

Kerstin Cecilia Gliksten (trading as The Denham Estate)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Council's screening decision that no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was required was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the Council erred in failing to require a bio-aerosol risk assessment as required by policy
  3. 3 Whether Condition 11 of the planning permission unlawfully enables relaxation of geographical restrictions on feedstock sourcing

Ratio Decidendi

The Council lawfully exercised its judgment in concluding that the development was not likely to have significant environmental effects and thus no EIA was required; the failure to require a bio-aerosol risk assessment was an error but not material given the change in policy and lack of real risk; Condition 11's tailpiece allowing relaxation of feedstock sourcing limits is unlawful and must be severed, but does not warrant quashing the entire permission.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed except for partial relief on Condition 11

Orders

  • The words 'unless otherwise approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority' are to be severed from Condition 11 of the planning permission.
  • No other relief granted; planning permission otherwise stands.