Home Page > Property Law Library > Planning > Environmental

Home Page
Contact
Editorial Team

Appeals procedure
Change of use
Children
Compensation
Compulsory purchase
Conditions
Development
Environmental
Enforcement
Judicial review
Localism
Material considerations
Permission
Policy consultation
National policy

Current page






Environmental

This page has case reports dealing with
  • Environmental impact assessments: The test for whether or not a proposed development required an Environmental Impact Assessment was considered.

  • EIA: The correct approach to take to screening opinions when a proposed development was split into two separate planning applications had to take into account the composite nature of the development. The Court exercised its discretion to refuse to grant relief, notwithstanding that it found a violation of the EIA Directive by virtue of the grant of a planning permission upon a defective screening opinion. Also a case on "salami slicing".

  • Form of EIA: Whether EIA needs to contain information relating to the need for development

  • Relationship to conditions: A planning committee could not properly make a decision not to have an Environmental Impact Assessment or a Habitats Appropriate Assessment based on a finding that there was no risk of pollutants entering a nearby river but at the same time impose conditions on the planning permission.

  • Review of screening decision: Nothing in the Aarhus Convention or European legislation requires the court to apply anything other than the Wednesbury standard to the review of a screening decision.

  • Habitats directive: A plan or project which is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site will adversely affect the integrity of that site if it is liable to prevent the lasting preservation of the characteristics of that site that are connected to the presence of a priority natural habitat whose conservation was the objective justifying the site’s designation as a Site of Community Interest.

  • Protective costs orders: When assessing whether proceedings are “prohibitively expensive” for the purposes of the Aarhus Convention, a court must look to both the financial resources of the individual claimant, and an “average claimant”. The assessment is not purely financial, and the court should also have regard to the importance of the claim, its complexity and the chances of the claim succeeding when assessing what would be prohibitively expensive.


Environmental impact assessment

Significant effects

R (on the application of Loader) v Secretary of State For Communities and Local Govern ... THIS IS AN EXTRACT OF THE FULL TEXT. TO GET THE FULL TEXT, SEE BELOW

Existing members, to login click =>
here
If you have found this page useful, you may be interested in the following:

Options
Free Summaries £nil
Full Membership From £207 + VAT (1 year)