Davies, R (On the Application Of) v Carmarthenshire County Council & Anor

For Schedule 2 development, an environmental impact assessment is required where the project is likely to have significant environmental effects. An effect does not cease to be significant merely because it is local. A screening opinion must address the relevant environmental impacts, including cultural and historic significance, and give intelligible reasons. Benefits of the proposal cannot eliminate environmental effects or displace statutory duties concerning listed buildings and conservation areas. Where the screening process is materially unlawful, the resulting planning permission may require quashing. The court will not substitute its own planning judgment for that of the elected planning authority where the authority’s decision is rational and adequately reasoned.

The claimant sought judicial review of Carmarthenshire County Council’s grant of planning permission for a 45-metre wind turbine near the Taf estuary, within a Special Landscape Area and opposite Dylan Thomas’s listed boathouse and writing shed. The challenge alleged defects in the environmental impact assessment screening opinion, an irrational assessment of visual impact, failure to apply relevant planning policies, and inadequate reasons for departing from the planning officer’s recommendation.

The court rejected the latter three grounds. The central issue was whether the screening opinion lawfully assessed whether the development was likely to have significant environmental effects, and, if not, what remedy should follow.

1. Ground 1 succeeded. The screening opinion unlawfully conflated the local extent of the effects with their significance. An effect of local significance may still be a significant environmental effect for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The officer’s report identified adverse effects on landscape, the historic environment, listed buildings and cultural heritage, yet the screening opinion stated that there would be no adverse environmental impact.
2. The screening opinion also failed to show that the cultural and historic significance of Dylan Thomas’s boathouse and writing shed had been addressed. The opinion did not properly identify the impact requiring assessment, and its reasoning was inadequate. The question of benefits was irrelevant to whether environmental effects existed and could not displace the duties under sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
3. Grounds 2–4 failed. The planning committee was entitled to form its own view of visual impact, including by using the displayed photomontage. The court could not substitute its planning judgment for that of the elected members. The committee’s resolution addressed the policy requirement of demonstrable harm, and there was no sufficient basis for irrationality or inadequate reasoning.
4. The planning permission was quashed. The court was not persuaded that the authority’s later evidence or submissions justified withholding relief. Even assuming a discretion not to quash existed, it would not have been exercised because the screening opinion had failed to address matters of significance and the cultural importance of the listed buildings. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of £21,275. Permission to appeal was granted.

This was a first-instance judicial review. Permission to apply was granted by HHJ Jarman QC on 5 November 2014. The High Court quashed the planning permission and granted the defendant permission to appeal.