Corrie, R (on the application of) v Suffolk County Council & Ors

A planning authority must take account of relevant development policies and material consultation responses, but it need not undertake a formal assessment based on assumptions that are too uncertain to produce a rational result. The relevant question is whether the authority’s inquiry was so inadequate that no rational planning authority could regard the material available as sufficient.

A Secretary of State’s screening direction under the EIA Regulations conclusively determines whether the development is EIA development. A later challenge to the planning permission cannot ordinarily reopen that determination, particularly where the screening direction was not challenged in time.

The claimant sought judicial review of Suffolk County Council’s grant of planning permission for a waste transfer station and enlarged household waste recycling centre at Rougham Hill, Bury St Edmunds.

The challenge concerned the proposed effect on a potential 1,250-home urban extension, the treatment of an Environment Agency consultation response, environmental impact assessment screening, the amount of hazardous waste permitted, and the risk of Legionella from the proposed misting system.

The court also considered whether later amendment of the hazardous-waste limit was material and whether the planning committee had failed to consider a material public-health concern.

1. Grounds concerning the proposed housing. The Council had regard to the relevant planning policies, including Policy NE5 and PPS10. The proposed housing was identified only in broad terms. There was no masterplan or planning application fixing the location of dwellings. A formal noise assessment would therefore have required speculation and could have been arbitrary. Applying the approach in R (Hayes) v Wychavon District Council [2014] EWHC 1987 (Admin), the inquiry was not so inadequate that no rational planning authority could regard the material as sufficient. The planning judgment was not irrational: Newsmith Stainless v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and Regions [2001] EWHC Admin 74.
2. Environment Agency consultation. The statutory consultation duty required the Council to take the Agency’s response into account. It did so. The response was general, identifying likely complaints from noise, odour, dust and pests and advising that proposed housing should be considered. Those matters appeared in the officer’s report and the Council’s reasoning. The absence of a detailed assessment of the potential housing was justified by the uncertainty about its location. The principle concerning consultation responses in R v Secretary of State for Social Services ex p Association of Metropolitan Authorities [1986] 1 All ER 164 was therefore satisfied.
3. EIA screening. The documentation accurately described the anticipated operation of the facility, including hazardous waste. The later figure of 5,000 tonnes in the original Condition 18 did not represent the actual characteristics of the project and did not constitute a relevant change of circumstances. The principle in World Wildlife Fund v Autonome Provinz Bozen [1999] ECR I-5613, at [37], was applicable.
4. Under regulation 4(3) of the EIA Regulations, the Secretary of State’s screening direction conclusively determined that the development was not EIA development. The Council was bound by it. The distinction from R (on the application of Catt) v Brighton and Hove DC [2007] EWCA Civ 298; [2007] Env LR 32 was material because Catt concerned a local-authority screening decision, not a Secretary of State direction. The later amendment reducing the hazardous-waste limit merely corrected the permission to reflect the anticipated operation and did not make the development fundamentally different. The application of the screening-direction principles in Evans v First Secretary of State [2003] EWCA Civ 1523 and R (on the application of Mageean) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWCA Civ 863 did not assist the claimant. The first-instance observations in Mageean [2010] EWHC 265 (Admin) did not account for regulation 4(3).
5. Legionella. The planning committee had access to the claimant’s written objection and could be presumed to have read it. The officer’s report did not need to mention every consultation point. The sustainability report also addressed the design of the misting system and Legionella control. There was no unlawful failure to consider a material planning issue, applying R (Hunt) v North Somerset Council [2013] LGR 1 and R (National Association of Health Stores) v Department of Health [2005] EWCA Civ 154. The judicial review claim was dismissed.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by Collins J on 18 March 2014. The High Court (Administrative Court) dismissed the application.