Nicola Squire v Shropshire Council

An environmental impact assessment is a dynamic process. The environmental statement is its starting point, but the decision-maker must consider the environmental statement, consultation responses, other substantive information and relevant expert advice before granting permission.

Where a development’s indirect effects include manure storage and spreading, those effects must be assessed. A planning authority may rely on relevant regulatory controls and expert assessment, provided it has sufficient environmental information to decide whether significant effects are likely and whether mitigation is available. The court reviews that judgment on ordinary Wednesbury principles and does not substitute its own view.

The claimant, a prospective neighbour, challenged the council’s grant of planning permission for four poultry buildings capable of housing 210,000 birds. She alleged that the council had failed to assess the indirect environmental effects of manure storage and spreading and had failed to take those effects into account as material planning considerations.

The council and the interested party relied on the environmental statement, consultation material, the public protection officer’s assessment, the Environment Agency’s permitting regime and a unilateral undertaking concerning manure management. The central issues were whether the environmental information was sufficient and whether the council had properly considered dust, odour and amenity effects.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. The council complied with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011. The environmental statement identified poultry manure as an expected residue, explained its disposal as agricultural fertiliser and addressed regulatory control. The assessment continued through consultation responses, the Environment Agency’s information, the Code of Good Agricultural Practice, the Environment Agency guidance and the public protection officer’s expert assessment.
2. The relevant permitting regime could control manure management off site, including dust and odour. The public protection officer also assessed the likely effects, advising that localised odour from spreading would be short-lived when good agricultural practice was followed and that stockpiled manure would produce little odour after a crust formed. The committee was entitled to rely on that assessment, the regulatory controls and the other environmental information before it.
3. The decision-maker was not required to reach a single objectively correct view on whether significant environmental effects were likely. The issue involved judgment or opinion and was reviewable on Wednesbury grounds. The members had the environmental statement, consultation responses, expert advice, regulatory information, a site visit and local knowledge before them.
4. Ground 2 dismissed. The officer’s report expressly addressed manure management, odour and residential amenity and contained the public protection officer’s assessment. The council did not disregard the issue merely because manure spreading did not itself require planning permission. It was entitled to take the permitting controls into account as part of its consideration of the material effects.
5. The unilateral undertaking issue did not require determination because the claim failed on both substantive grounds. The undertaking was nevertheless capable of providing additional comfort through the controls available to the council. The claim was dismissed, with the parties invited to agree an appropriate order.

First-instance judicial review claim. Permission was initially refused on the papers but was granted after an oral renewed application. This court dismissed the substantive claim.