The term “urban development project” encompasses a wide ambit in the context of the EIA Regulation
In R (on the application of Goodman) v Lewisham London Borough Council [2003] EWCA Civ 140; [2003] 2 PLR 42, the main issue for the Court of Appeal was whether a 24-hour self-service storage and distribution facility was capable of falling within the term “urban development project” for the purposes of paragraph 10(b) of Schedule 2 to the (then in force) Town and Country Planning (Environmental Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. (Paragraph 10 overall is headed “Infrastructure projects”.) In that case, the local planning authority (“LPA”) had granted planning permission for the facility without adopting a screening opinion.
The court held that it was so capable, and that the decision of the LPA not to carry out a screening exercise was flawed. Accordingly, it quashed the grant of planning permission. The court recognised that the term “urban development project” was followed in paragraph 10 (b) by the words “including the construction of shopping centres and car parks, sports stadiums, leisure centres and multiplex cinemas”. However, it held that these were not words of limitation but of description, emphasising the wide ambit encompassed by the term “urban development project”.
In R (on the application of Goodman) v Lewisham London Borough Council [2003] EWCA Civ 140; [2003] 2 PLR 42, the main issue for the Court of Appeal was whether a 24-hour self-service storage and distribution facility was capable of falling within the term “urban development project” for the purposes of paragraph 10(b) of Schedule 2 to the (then in force) Town and Country Planning (Environmental Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. (Paragraph 10 overall is headed “Infrastructure projects”.) In that case, the local planning authority (“LPA”) had granted planning permission for the facility without adopting a screening opinion. The court held that it was so capable, and that the decision of the LPA not to carry out a screening exercise was flawed. Accordingly, it quashed the grant of planning permission. The court recognised that the term “urban development project” was followed in paragraph 10 (b) by the words “including the construction of shopping centres and car parks, sports stadiums, leisure centres and multiplex cinemas”. However, it held that these were not words of limitation but of description, emphasising the wide ambit encompassed by the term “urban development project”. While in Goodman the development in question provided facilities to the public at large, and did not amount to simply a private operation, the development in R (on the application of Mouring) v West Berkshire District Council [2014] PLSCS 20 comprised a storage warehouse intended for the purposes of the interested party’s business, rather than for public access. It was to be sited on an unused field in an AONB. The LPA had, again, granted planning permission without adopting a screening opinion. This resulted in the claimant’s challenge. Despite the distinguishing facts, the court applied the reasoning in Goodman and held that the development was capable of falling within paragraph 10(b). It quashed the grant of planning permission. The judge stated that a wide and generous interpretation was to be given to the ambit of Schedule 2, when considering what projects were capable of falling within it. The term “infrastructure” itself included developments provided to facilitate the growth of industry. Moreover, for the purposes of Schedule 2, the term “urban development project” had to be seen as encompassing projects that were urban in their nature, regardless of their actual location. John Martin
