Image from Google Jackets

R (on the application of Candlish) v Hastings BC

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [2005] 29 EG 98(1)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: [2005] EWHC 1539 (Admin), 14 July 2005. Discusses whether Sched 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 should apply to the first phase of a phased development. The development was a 67ha site that the interested party planned to develop for residential, office and retail purposes. The defendants, the local planning authority (H), had granted permission having determined that the phase I application fell outside Sched 2 and therefore did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). A local resident, Candlish (C) opposed the development and brought a claim for a judicial review, arguing that the whole development fell within Sched 2 of the Regulations. C claimed that the development needed an EIA as per Directive 85/337/EEC Art 2(1) prior to development consent being given since phase I had no meaningful existence of its own but related to the overall project and that splitting the project and the applications in two would circumvent the requirements of the Directive and the Regulations. "Held": the claim was dismissed. The Regulations clearly showed that determining the necessity for an EIA would only arise if the application had been assessed as a Sched 2 application.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Journal article London Journal article L130518 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 130518-1001

[2005] EWHC 1539 (Admin), 14 July 2005. Discusses whether Sched 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environment Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 should apply to the first phase of a phased development. The development was a 67ha site that the interested party planned to develop for residential, office and retail purposes. The defendants, the local planning authority (H), had granted permission having determined that the phase I application fell outside Sched 2 and therefore did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). A local resident, Candlish (C) opposed the development and brought a claim for a judicial review, arguing that the whole development fell within Sched 2 of the Regulations. C claimed that the development needed an EIA as per Directive 85/337/EEC Art 2(1) prior to development consent being given since phase I had no meaningful existence of its own but related to the overall project and that splitting the project and the applications in two would circumvent the requirements of the Directive and the Regulations. "Held": the claim was dismissed. The Regulations clearly showed that determining the necessity for an EIA would only arise if the application had been assessed as a Sched 2 application.