Failure to provide a written statement giving clearly and precisely the full reasons for adopting a negative screening opinion

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulation 1999 (“the 1999 Regulations”) obliged a local planning authority (“LPA”) on adopting a positive screening opinion, and the Secretary of State on making a positive screening direction, to state in writing “clearly and precisely” the “full reasons” for the decision. However, the 1999 Regulations imposed no similar obligation in the case of a negative screening opinion or direction. In R (on the application of Mellor) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government C-75/08 [2010] Env. L.R. 2, the CJEU ruled that the competent national authority is under a duty to inform third parties in writing of the underlying reasons for a negative screening opinion or direction in the decision notice itself, or subsequently on request. This ruling is now reflected in regulation 4(7) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (“the 2011 Regulations). These replace the 1999 Regulations, in England, with effect from 24th August 2011. The claimant in R (on the application of Embleton Parish Council) v Northumberland County Council [2013] EWHC 3631 (Admin) applied to quash the decision of the LPA to grant planning permission for an agricultural building on a number of grounds. One of those was that the LPA had adopted a negative screening opinion without clearly and precisely setting out the full reasons for its decision. The facts revealed that the screening opinion was accompanied by a completed screening checklist. That gave a brief description of the development, and considered a number of areas where there was a possible impact on the environment. Most of the answers to the questions in the checklist were in the negative. The court held that there had been a breach of regulation 4(7) of the 2011 Regulations. The checklist was not a written statement giving “clearly and precisely” the “full reasons” for the decision; nor did it purport to be. It was a checklist intended to help users decide whether an environmental impact assessment was required. However, the court went on to conclude that it would be inappropriate to quash the grant of planning permission, because no prejudice of any kind had been suffered by the claimant. It was absolutely clear that, based on the officer assessment and the vast number of statutory consultee responses, no one had credibly alleged that the development was likely to have a significant effect on the environment. John Martin