Jackson v Norfolk County Council

Highway works do not require environmental-impact screening merely because they may fall within a broad project category. The threshold question is whether the works constitute development under section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and therefore fall within the screening regime. Highway improvement works are excluded unless they may have significant adverse environmental effects. Judicial review does not permit the court to reassess the merits or technical adequacy of an authority’s conclusions where the relevant environmental matters were considered. Nor is an authority required to model every theoretical combination of uncertain future transport schemes. It must take relevant uncertainties into account in a realistic and rational way.

The claimant sought judicial review of two traffic regulation orders made by Norfolk County Council, through the Norwich Highway Agency Committee, approving the Grapes Hill and Chapel Field North traffic schemes in Norwich. The schemes formed part of the Norwich Area Transport Strategy and affected roads near listed buildings and an air-quality management area.

The claimant alleged that the council had failed to undertake legally required environmental-impact screening, had failed to consider noise and vibration affecting listed buildings, and had relied on traffic modelling which assumed construction of an uncertain northern distributor road. The renewed applications were heard together.

1. The applications were refused. None of the three grounds disclosed an arguable case.
2. Under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, screening is linked to projects requiring consideration under the planning legislation. Section 55(2)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 excludes highway-authority works within road boundaries where they are for maintenance or improvement, unless works not exclusively for maintenance may have significant adverse effects on the environment.
3. The council was entitled to conclude that neither scheme was development within section 55(2)(b). The Grapes Hill works moved existing traffic and added a bus lane, while the Chapel Field North scheme was expected to reduce overall traffic. Neither scheme therefore required planning permission or EIA screening. The principles against artificially dividing projects and requiring consideration of cumulative effects could not assist because the statutory screening threshold was not met.
4. In any event, the criticism of cumulative effects in the Chapel Field North screening exercise was not arguable. The claimant had produced no evidence that relevant cumulative effects had been omitted.
5. The council had considered noise, vibration and air-quality concerns, including a specific report on Chapel Field North. The claimant’s challenge was in substance a disagreement with the merits and technical sufficiency of the evidence. That was outside the proper scope of judicial review.
6. The challenge concerning the northern distributor road was also unrealistic. The council had recognised the relationship between that road and the wider transport strategy, including the possibility that it might not proceed. The two schemes were not shown to be dependent upon it, and the council was not required to produce traffic models for every theoretical future combination of projects.

The judgment concerned two renewed applications for permission to seek judicial review. The proceedings had been ordered to be managed together by Stuart-Smith J on 15 July 2013. The High Court (Administrative Court) refused both applications.