Buglife (the Invertebrate Conservation Trust), R (on the application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp & Anor

Buglife (the Invertebrate Conservation Trust), R (on the application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp & Anor

The planning authority was entitled to conclude that, with the mitigation and phasing measures imposed, any harm to biodiversity would not be significant. Therefore, it was not required to follow the step-by-step process in PPS9 paragraph 1(vi) or undertake the balancing exercise in paragraph 16. The environmental impact assessment was sufficient and did not unlawfully defer key issues. The statutory and policy requirements were met.

Parties
Claimant: Buglife - The Invertebrate Conservation Trust; Defendant: Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation; Interested Party: Rosemound Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Permission Granted on Two Principal Grounds
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Biodiversity Conservation, Planning Permission, Environmental Impact Assessment, Statutory Duties of Planning Authorities, Costs in Judicial Review
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Biodiversity Conservation Planning Permission Environmental Impact Assessment Statutory Duties of Planning Authorities Costs in Judicial Review

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Buglife - The Invertebrate Conservation Trust

Claimant

Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation

Defendant

Rosemound Developments Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Permission Granted on Two Principal Grounds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning authority failed to apply the guidance in paragraph 1(vi) of Planning Policy Statement 9 (PPS9)
  2. 2 Whether the environmental impact assessment requirements under Regulation 3(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 were met

Ratio Decidendi

The planning authority was entitled to conclude that, with the mitigation and phasing measures imposed, any harm to biodiversity would not be significant. Therefore, it was not required to follow the step-by-step process in PPS9 paragraph 1(vi) or undertake the balancing exercise in paragraph 16. The environmental impact assessment was sufficient and did not unlawfully defer key issues. The statutory and policy requirements were met.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay defendant's costs, capped at £10,000, subject to a stay pending any application to the Court of Appeal.
  • Interested party's application for costs refused.