Warley, R (on the application of) v Wealden District Council

Warley, R (on the application of) v Wealden District Council

The planning authority misdirected itself in law by applying an unduly narrow interpretation of 'urban development projects' under Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations, failed to consider the overall environmental impact of the project as modified, and imposed an unlawful tailpiece in condition 2. These errors vitiated the grant of planning permission, which must be quashed.

Parties
Claimant: Warley; Defendant: Wealden District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim for judicial review granted; planning permission quashed; costs awarded to claimant subject to cap and VAT.
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Costs Orders
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Judicial Review Costs Orders

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Warley

Claimant

Wealden District Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of planning permission for floodlighting at Wadhurst Tennis Club required an Environmental Impact Assessment under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999
  2. 2 Whether the planning authority misdirected itself in law in determining the application did not fall within Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations
  3. 3 Whether conditions attached to the planning permission were lawful, specifically the tailpiece to condition 2 and the scope of condition 3

Ratio Decidendi

The planning authority misdirected itself in law by applying an unduly narrow interpretation of 'urban development projects' under Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations, failed to consider the overall environmental impact of the project as modified, and imposed an unlawful tailpiece in condition 2. These errors vitiated the grant of planning permission, which must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review granted; planning permission quashed; costs awarded to claimant subject to cap and VAT.

Orders

  • Planning permission for floodlighting at Wadhurst Tennis Club quashed in its entirety.
  • Costs awarded to claimant, subject to a cap of £15,000 plus VAT and a 20% reduction for partial success.