Case law >> EIA and predicting pollution

26th July 2013


Related Topics

Related tags

  • Local government ,
  • Construction ,
  • Consultancy

Author

IEMA

Experts from Lexis PSL on a High Court ruling that it was "irrational" for a local authority to decide an EIA was unnecessary and then impose planning conditions anticipating contamination at the site

In Champion v North Norfolk District Council and another [2013] EWHC 1065 (Admin) the court quashed a planning permission on the basis that it was not rationally possible to impose planning conditions pointing to a risk of contamination but, at the same time, decide that neither an environmental impact assessment (EIA) nor a habitats assessment were required as there was no relevant risk of pollution.

The local authority had granted planning permission for a development close to the River Wensum, which is a site of special scientific interest. After consulting with Natural England, the authority concluded that no EIA or habitats appropriate assessment were required because the development was not likely to have a significant effect on the environment.

However, the authority imposed planning conditions that required monitoring of water quality and measures for remediation should contamination occur.

When is an EIA/habitats appropriate assessment required?

Under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), which is transposed by the Habitats Regulations 2010, a development likely to have a significant effect on the site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, must be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications in view of the site’s conservation objectives – a “habitats appropriate assessment”.

The development can only be agreed by the competent national authority after it has ascertained the integrity of the site will not be adversely affected. Prior to granting permission for a project likely to have a significant effect on a European site the authority must carry out a habitats appropriate assessment.

Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337/EEC (the EIA Directive), meanwhile, requires an EIA to be carried out by the competent authority for certain projects likely to have significant effects on the environment, before consent is given.

An irrational decision

In Champion the High Court held that it was “inconsistent and irrational” of the council to decide there was no need for an EIA or habitats appropriate assessment and then impose conditions providing for remediation in the event of contamination.

The conditions suggested that there was a risk that pollutants could enter the river. But the decision that no EIA or habitats assessment was required can only be taken where it has been decided there was no relevant risk.

The court ruled that the authority could not rationally adopt both positions at the same time and the decision to grant permission with conditions was quashed.

North Norfolk District Council must now reconsider its decision and if it concludes that there is a risk, it will have to require a habitats assessment and an EIA.

Champion confirms that wherever there is a risk of contamination having a significant effect on the environment or a European site, the planning authority must require an EIA or a habitats assessment. Authorities cannot simply impose planning conditions to deal with the risk.

EIA practitioners must work out whether this is likely to be an issue at the outset of any development and factor in the time and costs of carrying out such assessments.

George Hobson and Hayley Tam, LexisPSL Environment


Transform articles

Costs limit application for individual in ‘Save the Northern Meadows’ group granted

In R. (on the application of Lewis) v Welsh Ministers, following a costs order against the claimant, the claimant applied for a costs limit in accordance with the Aarhus Convention 2001 and the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 1998/3132.

26th May 2022

Read more

Multinational drinks giant Diageo has been fined more than £1.2m by the Scottish government for breaches relating to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), despite having an appeal partially up-held.

26th May 2022

Read more

The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) has today published its first monitoring report on the UK government’s 25 Year Environment Plan, warning that progress so far has been “slow”.

12th May 2022

Read more

US companies registered with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) could be forced to report the climate-related impacts of their business under plans announced by the regulator this week.

24th March 2022

Read more

In R. (on the application of Finch) v Surrey County Council, the appellant appealed against the dismissal of her judicial review claim. She sought review of the council planning authority’s decision to grant permission to expand an oil well site and drill four new oil wells.

24th March 2022

Read more

Yorkshire Water has agreed to pay £300,000 to Yorkshire Wildlife Trust following a sewage discharge incident in Leeds in 2018.

24th March 2022

Read more

Nearly 10,400 companies worldwide – worth $105trn (£80.4trn) in market capitalisation – will be asked to disclose environmental data by more than 680 financial institutions this year through CDP.

14th March 2022

Read more

In R. (on the application of RSPB) v Natural England, the RSPB and a nature conservation scientist appealed a Natural England decision to grant a licence to “take and disturb” hen harriers for scientific, research or educational purposes under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

27th January 2022

Read more

Thames Water Utilities Limited has been fined £4m for discharging half a million litres of sewage into Seacourt Stream and Hinksey Stream in Oxford over two days in July 2016.

27th January 2022

Read more

Media enquires

Looking for an expert to speak at an event or comment on an item in the news?

Find an expert