Lanchester Properties Limited, R (on the application of) v Forestry Commission

A negative environmental screening opinion is a preliminary, broad-based judgment, not a full environmental impact assessment. The decision-maker must have enough information to identify environmentally sensitive areas, explain their sensitivity, assess its degree, and understand the proposed works and mitigation. The likelihood and significance of effects remain matters of judgment, and a project’s scale does not by itself make significant effects inevitable. Under regulation 6(4A) of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, reasons may be gathered from the opinion and other documents read in context. They are adequate if they enable an informed interested party to see that possible environmental effects were properly considered and to identify any public-law error.

Lanchester Properties Limited sought judicial review of the Forestry Commission’s 4 March 2025 negative screening opinion for a proposed 290-hectare woodland near Lanchester and Consett. The Commission had concluded that the proposal was not a relevant project requiring consent or a full environmental impact assessment under the Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. Permission was granted on three grounds: irrationality concerning landscape impact, irrationality concerning cultural heritage, and inadequate reasons. The central issues were whether the Commission had sufficient information to make the screening judgment, whether the proposal could reasonably be found unlikely to have significant environmental effects, and whether the reasons could be understood from the decision letter, checklist and supporting material.

The claim was dismissed.

1. Rationality. The screening exercise required judgment under the Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The decision-maker had to identify sensitive areas, understand why they were sensitive, assess their degree of sensitivity, and understand the proposed works and mitigation. Lanchester accepted that the Commission had sufficient information, including the Landscape Character Appraisal, repeated site visits and the design proposals. The rationality challenge therefore failed.
2. Scope of review. The court applied the two aspects of irrationality described in R (Law Society) v. Lord Chancellor [2019] 1 WLR 1649. Whether information is sufficient for screening, and whether significant effects are likely, are matters of judgment for the decision-maker. As explained in Kenyon v. Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] Env LR 8, screening is preliminary and broad-based, and a challenge to its evidential basis faces an uphill task.
3. Application. Afforestation over about 290 hectares, including extensive conifer planting, was capable of having significant environmental effects, but its scale did not make that outcome inevitable. Sensitive areas could be removed or treated with open space, buffers, broadleaved planting and other design measures. Compliance with the UK Forestry Standard was relevant evidence that environmental and landscape sensitivities had been considered, but was not treated as conclusive by itself.
4. Reasons. Regulation 6(4A) required the main reasons for the negative screening opinion to be stated by reference to the relevant criteria and proposed mitigation. It did not require all reasons to appear in one document. Applying R (Mellor) v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] Env LR 18, R (oao Bateman) v. South Cambridgeshire District Council [2011] EWCA Civ 157, South Bucks District Council v. Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953, R (on the application of Birchall Gardens LLP) v. Hertfordshire CC [2016] EWHC 2794 (Admin) and Mackman v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWCA Civ 716, the court read the decision letter, Checklist 10B and relevant supporting documents together. It was reasonable to infer that the decision-maker adopted the relevant expert opinions. The information enabled an informed party to see that the environmental effects had been properly considered.
5. Relief. The court also considered, in the alternative, the discretion to refuse relief for lack of substantial prejudice or because the outcome would not have been materially different, referring to R (oao Champion) v. North Norfolk DC [2015] UKSC 52. It was unnecessary to decide that issue because the claim failed on the substantive grounds.

This was a first-instance judicial review. The judgment records that permission was refused on paper by Mr Ockelton on 1 September 2025, but Hill J granted permission on oral renewal on 3 February 2026 on grounds 1, 2 and 4. No appeal is stated.