Burridge v Breckland District Council

For an application under Regulation 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, whether development falls within Schedule 2 is determined by reference to the development subject to the particular application. Related applications are not combined at that threshold stage.

Cumulative effects may be considered when assessing whether Schedule 2 development is likely to have significant environmental effects, especially where applications form part of an inevitably more substantial development. A further screening opinion is not required merely because a related facility is moved to another application, particularly where the development already screened has not materially changed.

The claimant sought judicial review of two planning permissions granted by Breckland District Council to Greenshoots Energy Ltd for an anaerobic digester, associated equipment, a combined heat and power plant, and an underground gas pipeline.

The original application had been screened and found unlikely to have significant environmental effects. The combined heat and power plant was later relocated to a separate site, and the original application was amended. The claimant argued that further screening opinions were required, that the environmental effects of digestate had not been considered, and that the revised development lacked an adequate noise assessment.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. The pipeline application was not Schedule 2 development under paragraph 3(b) of Schedule 2. The red-line area on the plans marked the permitted route corridor, not the area of works. The physical trench and pipe did not exceed the one-hectare threshold.
2. Under Regulation 7, the relevant application is the application before the local planning authority, and “the development in question” means the development which is the subject of that application. The authority was therefore not required to combine the separate pipeline and combined heat and power application with the amended original application when deciding whether a screening opinion was required.
3. The cumulative effects guidance in paragraph 46 of Circular 02/99 concerns the later question whether development within Schedule 2 is likely to have significant environmental effects. It does not alter the application-specific approach to Schedule 2 thresholds. Multiple applications may be considered together where they are properly an integral part of an inevitably more substantial development and separation would frustrate the Regulations. That was not established here, given the separate sites, geographical distance and absence of abusive splitting.
4. A material change to the development previously screened might justify a fresh screening opinion. However, the relocation of a separate facility did not require the Council to reconsider that separate application. In any event, the evidence showed that the Council had considered whether further screening was necessary and that any further screening opinion would inevitably have reached the same negative conclusion. Any failure could therefore be disregarded.
5. The digestate issue was already addressed in the original design and access material and had not changed. The Council’s officer confirmed that it had been considered. Reasons for a negative screening opinion need not be stated contemporaneously if the conclusion is stated in writing; the officer’s evidence could provide the reasons. The noise challenge also failed because the material before the Council reasonably indicated that removing the combined heat and power plant would make the site quieter.

The claim was dismissed.