Girling v East Suffolk Council

When assessing major development in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a planning authority must assess the development’s need as required by paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The policy leaves the meaning and application of “need” to the authority’s planning judgment, challengeable only on irrationality grounds. A quantitative estimate of a claimed time saving is not invariably required. It is not irrational to proceed without one where the authority lawfully concludes that the proposal causes no material harm to the designated landscape, or produces benefits, and other public-interest considerations support the development.

Under regulation 26(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, the relevant question is whether the authority’s reasoned conclusion on likely significant environmental effects remains up to date. The regulation does not require a formal finding that every item of environmental information is current.

The claimant sought judicial review of East Suffolk Council’s grant of planning permission for the relocation of facilities serving Sizewell B nuclear power station. The relocation works were intended to facilitate the possible later construction of Sizewell C.

Permission to proceed was granted on two grounds. First, the claimant alleged that the Council had failed to assess the need for the advance works and alternatives under paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Secondly, she alleged that the Council had unlawfully granted permission despite ecological survey information being out of date, contrary to regulation 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.

The central questions were whether the Council had acted irrationally in assessing need without quantifying the time saving, and whether it had lawfully satisfied itself that its reasoned environmental conclusion was up to date.

1. Ground 1(b) dismissed. Paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework required the Council to assess the need for the major development, but did not prescribe the method of assessment. “Need” was an ordinary, broad expression whose application was primarily for the planning authority. The court could intervene only on irrationality grounds.
2. The Council was entitled to identify the specific need as reducing delay in delivering Sizewell C if that project obtained development consent. It was not irrational, in the circumstances, to proceed without a quantitative estimate of the time saved. The Council had lawfully concluded that the proposal, viewed overall, caused no material harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and could provide landscape and wildlife benefits. That conclusion, together with the urgent national need for new nuclear generation, the identification of the site in national policy, the public interest in avoiding overlapping construction programmes and the lack of suitable sites outside the AONB, provided a rational basis for the exceptional-circumstances assessment.
3. Ground 2 dismissed. Regulation 26(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 concerns whether the authority’s reasoned conclusion under regulation 26(1)(b) on the significant environmental effects remains up to date. It does not make the validity of planning permission depend upon a formal conclusion that all environmental information is current.
4. The Council was entitled to judge that the available breeding-bird surveys, considered with habitat surveys and proposed mitigation, were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of reaching a reasoned conclusion. The adequacy and age of the survey material involved evaluative judgment, challengeable only on irrationality grounds. The officer’s report, read fairly and as a whole, did not disclose an outstanding concern requiring fresh surveys before permission was granted.
5. The judicial review claim was dismissed.