U & Partners(East Anglia) Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Broads Authority

U & Partners(East Anglia) Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Broads Authority

The grant of planning permission was ultra vires due to failure to require an EIA and failure to consider all significant environmental effects, including those on Peto’s Marsh; the delay in bringing the claim did not bar relief due to the strength of the case and EU law requirements for certainty in limitation periods.

Parties
Claimant: U & Partners (East Anglia) Ltd; Defendant: The Broads Authority; Interested Party: The Environment Agency
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Planning permission quashed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Directive 85/337/eec, Town and Country Planning (environment Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999, Delay in Judicial Review, Ultra Vires
Environmental Law Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Directive 85/337/eec Town and Country Planning (environment Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 Delay in Judicial Review +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

U & Partners (East Anglia) Ltd

Claimant

The Broads Authority

Defendant

The Environment Agency

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of planning permission was lawful without an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
  2. 2 Whether the effects on Peto’s Marsh were properly considered
  3. 3 Whether delay in bringing the claim should bar relief

Ratio Decidendi

The grant of planning permission was ultra vires due to failure to require an EIA and failure to consider all significant environmental effects, including those on Peto’s Marsh; the delay in bringing the claim did not bar relief due to the strength of the case and EU law requirements for certainty in limitation periods.

Court Disposition

Planning permission quashed

Orders

  • Permission granted for judicial review
  • Planning permission of 28 July 2010 quashed