Martin Edwards successfully sees off a planning judicial review based on alleged non-compliance with the EIA Reg

News07th November 2013

R (oao Peter Gibson) v Harrow LBC and Parish of St George Headstone [2013] EWHC 3449 (Admin)

Martin Edwards acted for the Interested Party in successfully opposing a judicial review of a planning permission granted to it by the London Borough of Harrow where a local resident argued that the decision was flawed because of an alleged failure to screen the development for EIA purposes. Mr Justice Sales agreed that, despite a failure of the local planning authority to screen the particular housing development the failure was not unlawful because a previous application for identical development had been screened and therefore the development had complied with regulation 7 of the EIA Regulations as the development in question had been screened albeit in relation to the earlier application. The judge also agreed that the local planning authority’s failure to place the earlier screening decision on the planning register in relation to the later application had caused no substantial prejudice to the claimant and so he refused relief, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Walton v The Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44. The claimant’s other grounds of challenge, based on adequacy of reasons, were also roundly rejected.

Related Barristers