Miller, R (on the application of) v North Yorkshire County Council

Whether a quarry extension is a small-scale extension under a local plan requires a qualitative, site-specific planning judgment against the specified criteria. No percentage, acreage or EIA threshold is conclusive. Courts show considerable deference to an authority’s interpretation of its own policy.

A planning officer must sift substantial material and provide sufficient information and guidance, but need not report every previous decision or representation. A monument’s setting is assessed visually in-the-round. EIA duties require assessment of likely significant effects, including hazards and risks, but an environmental statement need contain only information reasonably required and reasonably capable of compilation. Detailed habitat management may be secured later where the risk is resolvable.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Council’s decision to grant Tarmac permission for sand and gravel extraction and restoration at Ladybridge Farm, adjacent to Nosterfield Quarry. The application followed an earlier permission for a revised proposal which had been quashed.

She challenged the decision on four grounds: the interpretation and application of Policy 3/4 of the Minerals Local Plan; the assessment of the setting of Thornborough Henges; failure to consider bird management material; and alleged inadequacy of the environmental statement because it did not contain a bird management strategy.

The central issues were whether the Council had lawfully exercised its planning judgment and complied with the EIA requirements.

The substantive application was dismissed. Permission was refused on Ground 4 and granted on Grounds 1 to 3 before the substantive issues were decided.

1. Policy 3/4. Under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the application had to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan. The Council was entitled to interpret its own policy with considerable deference from the court, subject to perversity. Whether an extension was “small-scale” required a qualitative judgment on mineral quantity, working life, annual production and geographical extent and scale. No percentage increase, acreage or 25-hectare EIA threshold was a conclusive test. The Planning Officer’s Report adequately identified the relevant issues, and the Committee was entitled to rely on the officer’s expert sifting of material.
2. Material considerations and previous decisions. A matter was material only if it was relevant and capable of carrying some weight. The Ripon City Quarry decision was distinguishable and did not establish a quantitative rule. The earlier decision concerning Ladybridge Farm had been sufficiently identified, and the Committee was entitled to assess the application as it stood.
3. Setting. The setting of Thornborough Henges was a visual concept to be assessed in-the-round, including views from the monument, from the development and from other relevant viewpoints. The evidence showed that the Committee had been properly advised and that no professional evidence established a significant impact.
4. EIA and bird management. “Likely significant effects” required planning judgment and included future hazards and risks, assessed by reference to both the chance of an effect and its consequences. By August 2008, Defence Estates and the Council’s Principal Ecologist were satisfied that birdstrike risks could be managed within the restoration design through conditions, a section 106 agreement and a flexible bird management strategy. The earlier draft strategies and ecological comments therefore could not realistically have affected the decision.
5. Environmental statement. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 did not require a defensive statement containing every possible detail. The June 2008 statement addressed bird management sufficiently, and detailed habitat-management measures could properly be secured later. The absence of a completed strategy did not make the statement, or the permission, unlawful.