Holiday Extras Ltd v Crawley Borough Council

In assessing reasonable alternatives for an environmental report, the necessary level of detail depends on the circumstances, the plan’s objectives and its geographical scope. A planning authority need not identify every possible variation or sub-option where a broader alternative gives consultees a meaningful opportunity to propose modifications. The absence of representations during consultation may be relevant, particularly where the authority has considered a genuine alternative. Even if an error in the environmental assessment is established, relief may be refused under Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, section 113, where the court is satisfied that the decision would inevitably have been the same.

The claimant challenged a policy in the Crawley Plan concerning Gatwick Airport parking. The policy prioritised parking within the airport boundary. The claimant argued that the environmental assessment unlawfully failed to assess as a separate reasonable alternative the previous approach, which allowed off-airport parking subject to limitations and priority for on-airport provision.

The claim began as judicial review but was transferred to the statutory route under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The central issues were whether the environmental report identified and evaluated the required reasonable alternatives, whether the claimant’s failure to make earlier representations was relevant, and whether relief should be withheld if the policy would have been adopted in any event.

1. Application dismissed. The challenge to the Gatwick parking policy was refused. The claimant was ordered to pay the Council’s costs, summarily assessed at £75,224. Leave to appeal was refused.

2. Regulation 12(2) of the Environmental (Assessment of Plans and Programmes) Regulations 2004 required the environmental report to identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant environmental effects of implementing the plan and of reasonable alternatives. The court held that the Council had lawfully treated purely on-airport parking and off-airport parking as the relevant alternatives.

3. The Council was not required to set out every possible limitation or variation within the off-airport alternative. Consultees had the opportunity to suggest that off-airport parking should be subject to particular restrictions or should retain priority for on-airport provision. The level of detail required when identifying reasonable alternatives depends on the circumstances of the case.

4. The absence of representations before the environmental assessment was a material consideration. It weighed against the claimant’s complaint, especially because the claimant later had an opportunity to raise the substance of its objection before the inspector.

5. The inspector was concerned with the soundness of the plan rather than conducting a planning appeal afresh. He considered whether policy GAT 3 was justified and whether flexibility for temporary off-airport parking was required. His reasons showed that he had considered the previous GAT 8 approach and nevertheless concluded that GAT 3 was sound.

6. Even if the environmental assessment involved an error of law, section 113 conferred a discretion to refuse relief where the court was satisfied that the decision would have been no different and that quashing the policy would serve no useful purpose. That discretion was appropriately exercised.

The claim was commenced as judicial review and transferred to an application under section 113 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The Administrative Court dismissed the application. Leave to appeal was refused.