Littlewood, R (on the application of) v Bassetlaw District Council

A planning authority may determine a first-phase application without a masterplan for wider future development where no wider proposals have been formulated and there is insufficient information for a cumulative environmental assessment. A later masterplan obligation may be imposed.

An environmental statement need not contain perfect or exhaustive information. Deficiencies identified through consultation may be addressed by planning conditions. An omission invalidates the statement only if it is so substantial that the document cannot reasonably be described as an environmental statement.

The claimant sought judicial review to quash Bassetlaw District Council’s permission of 18 December 2007 for the first phase of a proposed regeneration scheme at the former Baker Refractory Works at Steetley. The permission authorised a pre-cast concrete manufacturing facility and associated works.

Permission was granted on six of nine grounds. The challenge concerned the absence of a masterplan and cumulative assessment, alleged misdescription of the site, nature conservation and archaeology, climate change, and the adequacy of the environmental statement and its non-technical summary.

1. Masterplan and cumulative effects. The Council was entitled to determine the first-phase application without first requiring a masterplan. No proposals had been formulated for the remainder of the site, which was not allocated for development, and there was no planning application or permission for it. Accordingly, there was insufficient information for a cumulative assessment under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. Requiring a masterplan subsequently by a section 106 agreement was lawful. The decision was a planning judgment and was not Wednesbury unreasonable.
2. Site description and ecology. The officer’s report, read as a whole, was adequate. Committee members had raised the alleged inaccuracies, visited the site and understood its character and the proposed building’s footprint. The Council had considered the ecological harm, alternative layouts, mitigation and the social, economic and environmental benefits. Its conclusion that the balance favoured permission was not shown to be Wednesbury unreasonable.
3. Archaeology. Information about possible caves was supplied through consultation. The Council was entitled to require archaeological investigation and mitigation by condition before development, rather than defer or refuse permission. The case was distinguishable from Cornwall County Council ex parte Hardy, which concerned strictly protected bats and a potential significant adverse effect. Subsequent investigations did not reveal human occupation, and the court would in any event have refused relief in its discretion.
4. Environmental statement. Applying the approach in Blewett v Derbyshire County Council, approved in Edwards v The Environment Agency, omissions concerning climate change and the caves did not make the environmental statement so deficient that it could not reasonably be described as such. The non-technical summary adequately summarised the environmental statement, and no misleading or prejudicial effect was established.
5. The claim failed on all grounds.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. No prior or subsequent appellate decision is stated in the judgment.