Thakeham Village Action Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Horsham District Council

Environmental impact assessment screening is a preliminary judgment entrusted to the local planning authority. The court reviews it on Wednesbury principles and does not substitute its own view. The authority must consider the development’s nature, size and location, together with the relevant Schedule 3 criteria, and must give reasons showing that the essential reasoning is understood. Further information may properly be required at the planning application stage where it addresses how impacts will be managed, rather than whether significant effects are likely. The EIA screening process is distinct from the later planning merits assessment. A development’s conflict with the development plan, or a significant planning impact, does not by itself establish likely significant environmental effects. Financial benefits from linked developments may be material where there is a real connection and the decision remains founded on planning grounds.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Council’s permission for 146 dwellings at a former mushroom-growing nursery. The linked proposal involved redeveloping a second nursery to consolidate mushroom production. The claimant alleged that the Council had unlawfully screened out an environmental impact assessment, failed to comply with the plan-led duty in section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and unlawfully treated the housing as enabling development for the second site.

The Council had issued screening opinions for both sites, assessed the linked and cumulative effects, considered the applications through several committee meetings, and secured works, payment and transfer arrangements by a section 106 agreement. The central questions were whether the screening decisions were lawful, whether the development plan had been given the required priority, and whether the linked financial and economic benefits were material considerations.

1. Outcome. The renewed application for permission on ground 2 was refused and the claim for judicial review was dismissed.
2. EIA screening. The Council had sufficient information to understand the nature, size and location of the proposed development. It considered the relevant statutory criteria and guidance, including the development’s characteristics, the sensitivity of its location and the potential effects. Its conclusion that significant environmental effects were unlikely was within the range of reasonable planning judgment. The court could not substitute its own assessment.
3. The linked proposals were properly treated as a comprehensive scheme for screening purposes. Considering their cumulative effects was realistic and necessary. The request for further surveys and reports did not unlawfully defer the screening decision, because the material was sought to show how particular concerns would be addressed in the planning process. The EIA screening exercise remained distinct from the assessment of the planning merits.
4. Section 38(6). The Council understood that the development plan had statutory priority. It separately determined each application, while considering their factual and economic relationship. Material considerations of sufficient weight could overcome the plan-led presumption, and the court could not re-weigh them absent legal error or irrationality.
5. Enabling development. The £3.75 million contribution was material because the two sites and proposals had a strong economic, functional and practical connection. Securing continued mushroom production, investment and employment was a legitimate planning purpose, even though the receiving business was privately owned. The section 106 arrangements lawfully restricted implementation of the housing permission until specified works, payment and transfer requirements had been completed. They satisfied the statutory and policy tests governing planning obligations and were not required to guarantee the future operation of the business.