R (on the application of Lebus) v South Cambridgeshire District Council

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) — Screening opinion — Claimant opposing planning application — Defendant council considering EIA unnecessary — Screening summary table placed on council register — Whether council complying with requirement to provide screening opinion — Regulations 5 and 7 of Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 — Claim dismissedThe claimant opposed a planning application to build an egg-production unit, and contended that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) ought to be carried out. The relevant regulations were the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999. These required an EIA for any development falling within Schedule 2 that was likely to have a significant effect upon the environment by virtue of its nature, size or location. By regulations 5 and 7, the council were required to provide a screening opinion, in writing, to determine whether a Schedule 2 development was an EIA development, and that opinion was to be placed on the council’s register. The council took the view that all the relevant matters would be covered in sufficient detail without an EIA. The reports of their planning committee made mention of a screening opinion, and a screening summary table was provided and placed on the register. However, the register did not state categorically that a screening opinion had been made, nor did it elaborate upon what it had been. The council reached the conclusion that the environmental impact of the proposed development could be reduced to insignificant levels, thereby rendering an EIA unnecessary, and they granted planning permission. The claimant sought judicial review, contending that the authority had, inter alia, failed to provide a screening opinion. Held: The claim was allowed. Although the council had given consideration as to whether the proposal constituted an EIA development, their decision was flawed. They had failed both to comply with the requirements of formality under the regulations, and to appreciate the need, under those regulations, to record the details of their consideration and to make them publicly available. Moreover, in considering whether an EIA was necessary, the council were not entitled to proceed on the basis that the relevant information would be provided in sufficient detail in the planning application. Richard Harwood (instructed by Richard Buxton, of Cambridge) appeared for the claimant; James Findlay (instructed by the solicitor to South Cambridgeshire District Council) appeared for the defendants. Sally Dobson, barrister