Long, R (on the application of) v Monmouthshire County Council & Anor

A judicial review of a planning permission is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process, not the planning merits or the weight given to competing considerations. For Schedule 2 development, an EIA screening opinion is a preliminary assessment. It must demonstrate that the relevant environmental issues have been understood and considered, but need not contain a detailed assessment or mention every consideration. Proposed mitigation may be taken into account where the decision maker can properly judge that significant effects are unlikely. The same approach applies at the Habitats Regulations screening stage. A planning authority may grant permission contrary to a development plan policy where material considerations indicate otherwise, provided the policy and its underlying principles have been properly considered. The claim was dismissed.

The claimant, representing the Keep Abergavenny Livestock Market group, challenged the Council’s grant of planning permission for demolition of the existing cattle market and associated buildings and construction of a library, supermarket, car park and landscaping.

The challenge alleged failures under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (England and Wales)) Regulations 1999 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, failure to consider development plan policy DES1(g), and unlawfulness because the permission could not lawfully be implemented while statutory market obligations remained. The central issues were whether the Council’s screening decisions and reasons were lawful, whether mitigation could be considered, and whether the Council had properly addressed the development plan and statutory context.

1. Claim dismissed. The Council’s decision to grant planning permission was lawful.
2. The EIA screening opinion was a preliminary assessment. It was not required to contain a detailed assessment of environmental effects or to refer to every document or consideration. The Council’s fuller reasons, read with the officer’s report and consultation material, demonstrated that the Schedule 3 criteria had been understood and addressed. The reasons sufficiently dealt with conservation interests, listed buildings, watercourses, ecological effects and the socio-economic consequences of relocating the livestock market.
3. The Council was entitled to take proposed remedial measures into account when assessing whether significant environmental effects were likely. The drainage and pollution controls were established and uncontroversial, had been endorsed by the relevant consultees, and were secured by conditions. The conclusion that no EIA was required was a planning judgment reviewable only on public law grounds.
4. Regulation 61 required a Habitats Regulations screening assessment before deciding whether an appropriate assessment was necessary. The Council had carried out that assessment, considered possible effects on the River Usk SAC, including in-combination effects, and obtained the concurrence of the Countryside Council for Wales. No credible evidence showed a real risk that the conditions would be ineffective. There was therefore no breach of the Habitats Regulations.
5. The development plan policy had been cited and considered in the officer’s report. A planning authority may conclude that development plan policies pull in different directions and may grant permission contrary to a particular policy where material considerations indicate otherwise. The decision to remove the slaughterhouses reflected an evaluative balance which was open to the Planning Committee.
6. The Council’s role was to determine the planning merits. Whether the permission depended upon later repeal of statutory provisions governing the cattle market was irrelevant to that decision.

The claim disclosed no unlawful error in the Council’s decision.