Gilbert v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors

An environmental impact assessment screening direction asks whether proposed development is likely to have significant environmental effects. It does not require a detailed assessment of every factor relevant to the grant of planning permission. Difficulties enforcing one noise condition do not make the screening decision unlawful where the decision-maker considers the available evidence and reaches an overall judgment. Noise-cap exceedances do not necessarily establish significant environmental effects. Cumulative effects must be considered, but adequate reasons may be read together with supporting checklist material. A detailed forecast of likely exceedances is unnecessary.

A local resident challenged a screening direction made by the Secretary of State under regulation 16 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, together with planning permission granted by Harborough District Council. The permission made permanent uses previously authorised for a temporary period at Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground, where noise from vehicle and other activities was a central concern.

Supperstone J, sitting in the Administrative Court, declined to quash either decision on 9 April 2014. The appeal concerned whether the Secretary of State had lawfully addressed the enforceability of the noise cap, the monitoring evidence, cumulative effects and the adequacy of the reasons for concluding that significant environmental effects were unlikely.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Laws LJ gave the leading judgment, with which Lewison LJ and Bean LJ agreed.

2. Under regulation 16 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, the screening question is whether the development is likely to have significant environmental effects. It is not a detailed assessment of matters relevant to the ultimate grant of planning permission. The court adopted the approach described in Bateman [2011] EWCA Civ 157.

3. The enforceability of condition 16, which imposed a noise cap, was not the decisive screening issue. It was one of a series of noise-control measures. Although the Environmental Health Officer and planning officers recognised difficulties in distinguishing noise sources and enforcing the cap, they concluded that significant environmental effects were unlikely. The Secretary of State had that material before him and was entitled to reach the same overall conclusion. The reference to statutory nuisance was not the applicable legal test.

4. The absence of continuous monitoring did not invalidate the assessment when considered with the other information, including representations and monitoring results. Noise levels had improved, and exceedances above the cap would not necessarily demonstrate significant environmental effects.

5. Cumulative effects had been expressly considered, including the existing uses at the site. The Secretary of State’s decision and the answer to the screening checklist provided sufficient material showing that the issue had been addressed.

6. The reasons were intelligible and adequate when paragraphs 9 and 10 of the screening decision were read with the checklist, particularly the answer to question 6. The Secretary of State was required to make an overall judgment, not provide a detailed assessment of likely exceedances over 40 dB(A). An application by the interested party to introduce new evidence therefore did not require determination.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 3 March 2015, the court dismissed the appeal. [2015] EWCA Civ 314
2. High Court (Administrative Court): Supperstone J declined to quash the Secretary of State’s screening direction and Harborough District Council’s planning permission on 9 April 2014.