Anderson & Ors, R (on the application of) v City of York Council

In deciding whether an environmental impact assessment is required for a Schedule 2 development, the local planning authority must exercise judgment on the basis of sufficient information and by reference to the particular site and proposal.

A screening opinion need not set out exhaustive reasons or identify every document considered. It may take account of subsequent planning conditions and ordinary mitigation measures, provided the authority has already reached a concluded view on likely significant environmental effects. The opinion must not be read as if it were a statutory provision, but by an informed reader aware of the proposal and its context.

The claimants sought judicial review of two planning permissions granted by City of York Council for the redevelopment of the Barbican Leisure Centre and an outline community swimming pool. The proposals fell within Schedule 2 of the Town & Country Planning and Environment Act of England and Wales Regulations 1999.

The claimants challenged the Council’s negative screening opinions. They argued that the officer had relied improperly on later conditions and mitigation, lacked sufficient information, and had applied the Schedule 3 criteria mechanically without properly considering the scale, cumulative effects, historic setting and sensitivity of the site.

1. Claim dismissed. The officer had sufficient information to decide whether the proposals were likely to have significant environmental effects and had given adequate reasons.
2. The determination of likely significant environmental effects is initially a matter of judgment for the local planning authority, as is the question whether it has sufficient information to form a proper screening opinion. The screening opinion is final and cannot be reopened merely because later information suggests that significant effects may exist.
3. A screening opinion need not provide an exhaustive account of the officer’s reasoning or refer to every document relied upon. It should be read by an informed reader familiar with the site and the proposal. The extensive planning material, including environmental, archaeological, transport, noise and air-quality information, was sufficient.
4. It was lawful to conclude that there would be no significant adverse environmental effects while recognising that further details might be considered and that planning conditions might reduce such effects. That approach did not make the screening opinion provisional or substitute the planning process for an environmental impact assessment.
5. Reliance on mitigation may be problematic where the measures are novel, untested or subject to real uncertainty about their effectiveness. That difficulty did not arise because the measures relied upon were ordinary and tried measures. The officer was not required to explain in detail why they were appropriate.
6. The officer had properly considered the characteristics of the development, its redevelopment context, proposed use classes, cumulative effects, historic and archaeological features, groundwater, residential amenity, traffic, noise, light and air quality. The Schedule 3 criteria had not been applied mechanically.
7. The court therefore found it unnecessary to determine whether relief should alternatively be refused for delay. The claim was dismissed. The defendant sought its costs, subject to the position under legal aid being clarified, and permission to appeal was refused.