Chigwell Parish Council, R (on the application of) v Epping Forest District Council

For the purposes of the environmental impact assessment regime, “dwellinghouse development” means a development of dwelling houses in their ordinary planning sense. Accommodation within a Class C2 scheme may constitute dwelling houses where it provides the facilities needed for day-to-day private domestic existence. The Use Classes Order does not exhaustively define the term for other planning legislation or regulations.

A defective reference to superseded EIA regulations is immaterial where the decision-maker has considered the relevant environmental impacts and criteria. A challenge based on the evidence underlying an adopted and unchallenged local plan is an impermissible collateral attack. Reasons for an EIA screening decision need only demonstrate that the authority determined the issue lawfully; brief reasons may suffice.

Chigwell Parish Council sought permission to bring judicial review proceedings challenging Epping Forest District Council’s grant of planning permission for an integrated retirement community comprising 144 residential units and associated facilities.

The principal issue was whether the proposal was “dwellinghouse development” for the purposes of the threshold for Schedule 2 development under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. Chigwell also alleged that the officer had applied the wrong regulations, failed to consider a sustainability appraisal report, acted irrationally, and gave inadequate reasons.

Permission had previously been refused on the papers. The renewed application was determined by the Planning Court.

1. Permission refused. The proposed development was not shown to require an environmental impact assessment, and none of the grounds had a realistic prospect of success.

2. Under regulations 2 and 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, an EIA is required for Schedule 1 development or Schedule 2 development likely to have significant environmental effects. The relevant threshold concerned urban development exceeding one hectare which was not dwellinghouse development.

3. The term “dwellinghouse” has its ordinary planning meaning. The applicable question is whether the accommodation provides facilities needed for day-to-day private domestic existence, applying the approach in Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1984) 47 P & CR 142. Class C2 care accommodation may contain dwellings; care provision does not prevent the units from being dwelling houses. The argument that dwelling houses must fall within Class C3 was rejected, following Rectory Homes Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Levelling Up [202] EWHC 2098 (Admin).

4. The local-plan allocation could not be challenged indirectly through the EIA screening challenge. Examining the documents and discussions underlying the adopted plan would amount to impermissible forensic archaeology, as explained in R(TW Logistics) v Tendring District Council & Anr [2013] EWCA Civ 9.

5. The officer’s reference to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 rather than the 2017 Regulations was not material. The officer had considered the relevant environmental impacts and criteria. The alleged irrationality ground, framed by reference to R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 2094 (Admin), was unarguable because the report addressed the environmental and landscape effects. The reasons were sufficient under the approach in R (Jedwell) v Denbighshire County Council and ors [2015] EWCA Civ 1232.

First-instance renewed application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings. Lang J had refused permission on the papers by an order promulgated on 22 January 2026. The renewed application was refused by HHJ Karen Walden-Smith.