Headcorn Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

In screening Schedule 2 development for environmental impact assessment, the decision-maker must consider the relevant statutory criteria, including potentially significant cumulative effects. The court assesses relevance as a question of law, but the weight and significance of the evidence are matters for the decision-maker’s planning judgment.

The precautionary approach does not require speculative investigation of possible cumulative effects unsupported by objective evidence. A negative screening decision is lawful where the decision-maker considers the available site-specific material, addresses the relevant environmental issues, and gives reasons adequate for the particular application.

The claimant challenged two decisions concerning a proposed development of up to 220 houses at Headcorn, Kent: the Secretary of State’s screening direction that the proposal was not likely to have significant environmental effects, and Maidstone Borough Council’s grant of outline planning permission.

The claims were consolidated. The sole issue at the substantive hearing was whether the Secretary of State had failed to consider concerns expressed by a Kent County Council officer about cumulative traffic impacts on the A229 and A274 corridors south of Maidstone. The claimant argued that those concerns should have prompted further investigation and a positive screening decision.

1. The claims were dismissed. The Secretary of State’s screening direction and Maidstone Borough Council’s planning permission were not unlawful on the pleaded ground.
2. A public decision-maker must take into account every consideration which the empowering legislation expressly or impliedly requires it to consider. Whether a matter is legally relevant is for the court; the weight given to it is for the decision-maker. The principle applies to the environmental factors and Schedule 3 criteria required by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011.
3. The relevant screening question was whether the Schedule 2 development was likely to have significant effects on the environment, having regard to its nature, size and location and the relevant Schedule 3 criteria, including size, cumulation with other development, pollution and nuisances, and the characteristics of the potential impact. The exercise is preliminary and does not require a full assessment of environmental effects.
4. The Secretary of State was entitled to rely on the evidence relating to the Site and to treat the detailed consultation response from the highways authority as representing its position. The correspondence relied upon by the claimant concerned major development in the Maidstone urban area and did not objectively raise concerns about cumulative effects extending to Headcorn. There was therefore no obligation to undertake a speculative investigation into whether the highways authority might hold a different view.
5. The Secretary of State considered transport and related environmental effects, the available transport assessment, the highways authority’s comments, the criticisms made by the claimant, and cumulative development in Headcorn. His conclusion that the effects would be local and less than significant was a permissible exercise of planning judgment. The reasons given were adequate for this screening decision and did not need to meet the standard applicable to an inspector’s appeal decision letter.

Permission to apply for judicial review was initially refused by Jay J and Holgate J. On 15 December 2016, Jackson LJ granted permission in the Court of Appeal. The consolidated claims were then determined at first instance by the High Court (Administrative Court).