Slurry, screening and salami slicing

10th November 2012

Layingdown 2

Related Topics

Related tags

  • Local government ,
  • Central government ,
  • Construction ,
  • Consultancy



Stephen Tromans highlights two cases that demonstrate environmental impact assessment continues to be a fertile source of legal development

Development requiring an environmental impact assessment (EIA) is generally one that falls into either Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations. The secretary of state for communities and local government has power, however, to subject an application for planning permission to EIA screening even where it falls outside the criteria set by the schedules.

Increasingly, objectors to developments, including rival developers, are seeking to challenge a refusal by the secretary to exercise that power. R (Threadneedle) v Southwark LBC [2012] EWHC 855 (Admin) was one such case. The result was a judgment emphasising the discretionary nature of the secretary’s power.

The case focused on student accommodation in Southwark, which was well below the threshold for an urban development project under Schedule 2. The local planning authority (Southwark Council) maintained that the development was not EIA development. The claimants had an interest in a nearby site and argued that the development would, cumulatively with other consented or proposed development in the area, have impacts on daylight, historic London monuments and key views across the capital.

Although the claimants wrote to the secretary urging him to call the planning application in for consideration, he declined to do so, and the council proceeded to grant planning permission.

The key question for the High Court was whether the secretary erred in law by not even considering whether to exercise his discretion. Justice Lindblom noted that the power to deem a project an EIA development even though it is not, is one reserved solely for the secretary of state, and in that sense is plainly a power to make an exception to the normal operation of the statutory regime under the EIA Regulations.

Lindblom identified four features of the power worth noting:

  • it is unlike other powers in the EIA Regulations in that there is no prescribed procedure for it;
  • it may be used only by the secretary of state;
  • a decision not to exercise the power will not amount to a breach either of the EIA Directive (85/337/EEC (as amended)) or the EIA Regulations; and
  • there is no general obligation on the secretary to consider making a direction.

The Threadneedle case should be read alongside R (Burridge) v Breckland DC [2012] EWHC 1102 (Admin), where the High Court heard further interesting argument concerning cumulative development.

The development in question combined an anaerobic digester, which would produce biogas from a mixture of slurry, chicken litter and maize, and a combined heat and power plant (CHP) that would generate energy from the biogas. Both facilities were on a single site.

The application was clearly Schedule 2 development and Breckland District Council in Norfolk subjected it to screening opinion under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, which were in force at the time – the result was a negative opinion.

In response to objections regarding the CHP plant, the developer moved it to an existing industrial site more than 1km away, proposing to connect it to the main anaerobic digestion (AD) site by a pipeline. It made a separate planning application for the CHP plant. The council decided no further screening opinion was required for the main site, despite the removal of the CHP plant. A judicial review was sought on the basis that what had happened amounted to “salami-slicing” of a project in an effort to frustrate the aims of the EIA Directive.

Judge Waksman dismissed the challenge, noting that the CHP plant alone was not EIA development and that the EIA Regulations did not oblige the council to consider that application together with the application for the main AD site for screening purposes.

The judge acknowledged that had the original application been for an AD site with a CHP plant elsewhere, as was eventually the position, the council would have been open to take the CHP plant into consideration when screening the AD site’s application. However, as there had been no material change in the original application by removal of the CHP plant there was no obligation on the council to screen again.

The underlying merits of the claimant’s case were relatively weak, in that when the AD and CHP plant were one development at a single site they had been the subject of a negative screening opinion, and the CHP plant had been moved to a location where it was less likely to give rise to environmental effects.


Subscribe to IEMA's newsletters to receive timely articles, expert opinions, event announcements, and much more, directly in your inbox.

Transform articles

Four in five shoppers willing to pay ‘sustainability premium’

Despite cost-of-living concerns, four-fifths of shoppers are willing to pay more for sustainably produced or sourced goods, a global survey has found.

16th May 2024

Read more

One in five UK food businesses are not prepared for EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) coming into force in December, a new survey has uncovered.

16th May 2024

Read more

Each person in the UK throws a shocking 35 items of unwanted clothes and textiles into general waste every year on average, according to a new report from WRAP.

2nd May 2024

Read more

The largest-ever research initiative of its kind has been launched this week to establish a benchmark for the private sector’s contribution to the UK’s 2050 net-zero target.

2nd May 2024

Read more

Weather-related damage to homes and businesses saw insurance claims hit a record high in the UK last year following a succession of storms.

18th April 2024

Read more

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has issued a statement clarifying that no changes have been made to its stance on offsetting scope 3 emissions following a backlash.

16th April 2024

Read more

One of the world’s most influential management thinkers, Andrew Winston sees many reasons for hope as pessimism looms large in sustainability. Huw Morris reports

4th April 2024

Read more

Vanessa Champion reveals how biophilic design can help you meet your environmental, social and governance goals

4th April 2024

Read more

Media enquires

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

Find an expert

IEMA Cookie Notice

Clicking the ‘Accept all’ button means you are accepting analytics and third-party cookies. Our website uses necessary cookies which are required in order to make our website work. In addition to these, we use analytics and third-party cookies to optimise site functionality and give you the best possible experience. To control which cookies are set, click ‘Settings’. To learn more about cookies, how we use them on our website and how to change your cookie settings please view our cookie policy.

Manage cookie settings

Our use of cookies

You can learn more detailed information in our cookie policy.

Some cookies are essential, but non-essential cookies help us to improve the experience on our site by providing insights into how the site is being used. To maintain privacy management, this relies on cookie identifiers. Resetting or deleting your browser cookies will reset these preferences.

Essential cookies

These are cookies that are required for the operation of our website. They include, for example, cookies that enable you to log into secure areas of our website.

Analytics cookies

These cookies allow us to recognise and count the number of visitors to our website and to see how visitors move around our website when they are using it. This helps us to improve the way our website works.

Advertising cookies

These cookies allow us to tailor advertising to you based on your interests. If you do not accept these cookies, you will still see adverts, but these will be more generic.

Save and close