Air quality: whose job is it anyway to decide?

17 October 2011 by

Cornwall Waste Forum, St Dennis Branch v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (2011) QBD (Admin, CO/6088/2011), Collins J, 13 October 2011

An interesting case about who is to decide issues of air quality in a planning case about incinerators/energy-from-waste plants – that choice of terminology depends on whether you are objecting to or applying for permission to construct. Because the judgment is extempore, it is very shortly reported at the moment (on Lawtel for those who have access to this subscription service), though some extracts are to be found on the claimants’ website.

The claimants were objectors at public inquiry. As a result of the inquiry, the Secretary of State (D1, in the form of Eric Pickles) decided to grant planning permission to D2 for the construction of two energy-from-waste plants. The proposed site of the incinerators (NB 1-1 on the terminology) was next to two Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) which were protected under the EU Habitats Directive as transposed by (now) the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The Regulations said who were to be the “relevant” and “competent” authorities. D1 was both, particularly under reg.61(1) where he had to carry out an “appropriate assessment” of the implications of a proposed development for a SAC.

Now came the problem for the objectors. After the hearing of the inquiry, the Environment Agency issued an environmental permit for the plants. Some 3 months later, the planning inspector (as D1’s appointee) granted planning permission. In doing so, he relied on the issue of the permit as an indication that an “appropriate assessment” of the impact of the development upon the SACs under the Regulations was unnecessary. The Agency was also a “competent authority” and it would not have issued a permit if an appropriate assessment had been necessary – it was said.

The objectors said it had a legitimate expectation that D1 would act as a competent authority and decide before granting planning permission whether an “appropriate assessment” under the Regulations should be carried out but in breach of that legitimate expectation he had improperly abdicated his responsibility to the Environment Agency.

Collins J agreed with the objectors. It wasn’t that the Agency was not also a competent authority but D1 was also charged to make his own assessment of the impact on the SAC. He could not delegate that function to the Agency, even though their responsibilities overlapped. D1’s conclusion was indeed in breach of the objectors’ legitimate expectation that D1 would act as the competent authority.

In quotes taken from the objectors’ website after the decision:

“Clearly what was envisaged was that the inspector would consider and  give his views on not only whether an Appropriate Assessment was needed  but, if possible, what the Appropriate Assessment should decide…….That the objectors were led to believe that the inspector would deal with the issue, there can be no doubt. That was on the basis that the Secretary of State was the Competent Authority and the appropriate authority to deal with the issue….The objectors were never disabused of that belief by anything said by the inspector in the course of the inquiry process.”
The judge added that in considering the impact of a development on a SAC, there was a two-stage approach: first, consideration should be given to whether no adverse effects could possibly result. If that was not the case, an appropriate assessment had to be made. Whilst technically it was not a planning inspector who would make an appropriate assessment, in practice the planning inspector’s recommendations would be persuasive. In addition there could be no doubt that air quality and air emissions were a matter of planning control; planning conditions could be imposed to protect against them, even though the Agency also was in a position to regulate the plant through the terms of the environmental permit.

Whilst it was said that the Agency would not issue a permit for a development that would cause harm, that wholly missed the point that C had objected at inquiry to the evidence on which the Agency had based the issue of its permit, and the planning inspector had failed to deal with the weight to be attached to that evidence. “There was evidence put before the inspector that the EA had got it wrong. But he did not deal with or reach any decisions on the evidence which had been produced to challenge the EA’s view.”

There was another twist. Because more than 3 months had expired between the issue of the permit and the inspector’s decision, the judge ruled that the objectors had been further prejudiced through being denied the opportunity of seeking judicial review of the Agency’s decision through that delay.

What then to do about this illegality? The judge ruled that it was inappropriate for the court to exercise its discretion and refuse relief to the objectors. Despite the defendants saying that delay to the construction of the incinerators might cost the relevant local authority £200 million, the Directive and the 2010 Regulations were the law and had to be obeyed. So the decision had to be quashed – i.e. struck down.

But the courts have not heard the last of the case. Given its general importance, the judge gave both defendants permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Detailed comment is premature before I read the judgment. But the headline to be drawn from it is a welcome recognition by the judge that certain types of unlawfulness (however inconvenient to defendants) simply cannot be waved off as “one of those things”. The other obvious point is that if planning inspectors are in effect taking the role of the Secretary of State, then this requires the inspectors to discharge all the duties upon the Secretary of State, including those under these conservation regulations.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

1 comment;


  1. Just a quick point, both defendants have not been granted leave to appeal. SITA failed to do so at the hearing, and will now have to make a separate application. Charlie Hopkins Consultant instructed by Claimants, CWF.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: