Bateman & Anor, R (on the application of) v South Cambridgeshire District Council

For a Schedule 2 development, the screening question is whether it is likely to have significant effects on the environment. A planning officer may use relevant guidance thresholds as part of that assessment, provided the decision addresses the statutory selection criteria and reaches a rational conclusion on the information available. The absence of later transport, landscape or noise assessments does not by itself invalidate the screening opinion. Where directly effective environmental-costs protections apply, costs for a paper permission application should not be prohibitively expensive; following Corner House, the appropriate cap here was £1,000.

The claimants sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the grant of planning permission for an extension to a grain-storage facility. They alleged failures under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 and the EIA directive, principally challenging the adequacy and rationality of the screening opinion.

Permission had been refused on the papers. On renewal, the defendant and interested party also argued that the claim was invalid or out of time because the claim form did not contain detailed grounds and facts in its body. The court had to determine whether the claim was valid and timely, whether the screening decision was arguably unlawful, and what protective costs order should be made.

1. Validity and delay. CPR 54.6 requires detailed grounds and the facts relied on to be set out in the claim form. They should ordinarily appear in its body. Nevertheless, the claim form sufficiently incorporated the attached pre-action protocol letter to identify a summary of the grounds and relevant facts, so it was not invalid. The court declined to encourage that drafting practice. The claim was not rejected for delay, since the factual issue as to when the claimants knew of the screening opinion remained unresolved.
2. Screening opinion. The proposal was Schedule 2, paragraph 10 development. The essential question was whether it was likely to have significant environmental effects. It was not irrational for the planning officer to assess the proposal by reference to the higher industrial-estate threshold in paragraph A17 of Circular 02/99 rather than paragraph A19. In any event, the critical issue was the likely significance of the environmental effects, not whether the proposal fell within paragraph 10(a) or 10(b).
3. The officer had considered the nature, size and location of the development, its cumulative relationship with existing development, and its potential impacts. She concluded that it would not have more than local importance, was not in an environmentally sensitive or vulnerable location, and would not have unusually complex or hazardous environmental effects. Those reasons were adequate and rational. The fact that detailed transport, landscape and noise assessments were to be provided with the planning application did not undermine the screening opinion.
4. The challenge was not arguable and permission was refused.
5. Protective costs. Although the claim did not satisfy the Corner House general-public-importance criteria, the court considered that article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC conferred directly effective rights requiring costs not to be prohibitively expensive. Applying the Corner House guidance, the defendant’s costs for the paper permission application were limited to £1,000. The previous £4,000 order was substituted and there was no further order as to costs.

First-instance renewed application for permission. Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Mr George Bartlett QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, with an order for £4,000 costs against the claimants. The present court refused permission on the merits, substituted a £1,000 costs order for the paper application, and made no further order as to costs.