Howard & Anor v Wigan Council [2014] EWHC 4296 (Admin) (18 December 2014)

Howard & Anor v Wigan Council [2014] EWHC 4296 (Admin) (18 December 2014)

The local planning authority applied the correct legal test, considered all material information, and reasonably concluded that the development was not likely to have significant environmental effects and was not EIA development. The screening opinion was not perverse or inadequately reasoned.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 4296 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Steven Howard; Claimant: Justine Bennett; Defendant: Wigan Council; Interested Party: Morris Homes Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Permission refused; claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Ground Contamination, Judicial Review, Screening Opinion
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Ground Contamination Judicial Review Screening Opinion

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 7 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Howard

Claimant

Justine Bennett

Claimant

Wigan Council

Defendant

Morris Homes Ltd

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission and Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local planning authority's screening opinion that the proposed development was not EIA development was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the authority properly considered environmental information regarding site contamination
  3. 3 Whether the grant of planning permission was unlawful due to reliance on allegedly materially false sampling evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The local planning authority applied the correct legal test, considered all material information, and reasonably concluded that the development was not likely to have significant environmental effects and was not EIA development. The screening opinion was not perverse or inadequately reasoned.

Court Disposition

Permission refused; claim dismissed.

Orders

  • Claim 2 dismissed.
  • Claim 1 dismissed as academic.