Landmark Chambers Centre for Environmental Law - Blog

Energy Bill Announced in Queen’s Speech

2012-05-17T14:19:27+00:00

Environmental issues were once again in the news last week as the Government’s legislative agenda was revealed in the Queen’s Speech on 9 May. The speech confirmed that the Government’s latest low-carbon energy proposals, contained in the Energy Bill, will be considered in this Parliament. The announcement that the Government “will propose reform of the electricity market to deliver secure, clean and affordable electricity and ensure prices are fair” dispelled fears that the Bill would be sidelined to make way for House of Lords reform.

Court of Appeal rules on promptness and summary reasons for the grant of planning permission

2012-03-12T16:24:30+00:00

On 9th March 2012 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by Mr Macrae against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review of a grant of planning permission by Herefordshire DC for a dwelling in the countryside (for Administrative Court judgment see R(Macrae) v Herefordshire DC [2011] EWHC 2810 (Admin)). The Court had to consider whether the application had been made promptly; and also whether the Council was in breach of its duty to give “summary reasons” for the grant. The application was lodged two days within the three month time limit. The skeleton lodged on behalf of Mr Macrae advanced an argument that the separate requirement that the application be made “promptly” breached the principle of legal certainty and was invalid, even in purely domestic cases not involving EU law. The Court however did not find it necessary to hear oral argument on the “interesting” arguments advanced in this connection, because, first, the application had been made promptly on a conventional approach to the issue; and, second, that it was illegitimate to consider what had happened at council meetings when considering the effect of a lack of summary reasons. The public should not be expected to undertake a paper chase. The Court did not quash the permission because the dwelling was now built and occupied by a young family; but did allow the appeal and grant declaratory relief. The judgment is an important re-affirmation of the principles to be applied in summary reasons cases.

Richard Drabble QC appeared for Mr Macrae (leading James Burton)

New EIA Directive

2012-02-16T15:45:32+00:00

The European Parliament and Council have published a new consolidated version of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 2011/92/EU of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (codification). This can be found at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:026:0001:0021:EN:PDF

It was published in the OJ on 28 January 2012 and comes into force 20 days thereafter: see Article 15. It therefore comes into force this week. The Directive consolidates changes made to Directive 85/337/EEC by Directive 97/11/EC; Directive 2003/35/EC and Directive 2009/31/EC. Recital (1) says that it is “In the interests of clarity and rationality the said Directive should be codified”. For many of us it means getting used to new Article numbers. Thus:

• Article 1(5) on EIA via legislative processes is now Article 1(4);

• Article 15a on access to justice in Article 16.

Natural England challenges traditional upland management

2012-02-13T10:17:31+00:00

A current appeal by the Walshaw Moor Estate under s. 28E of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 against a modification of consent for operations on a site at Walshaw Moor, West Yorkshire raises important questions about the survival of traditional management of upland habitats in the UK, especially those (such as this) which are managed for grouse.

REJECTION OF WHITBY VILLAGE GREEN APPLICATION AS NOT BEING AS OF RIGHT UPHELD BY THE HIGH COURT

2012-01-31T15:12:57+00:00

Civil Sanctions Regime Back On Track

2011-11-09T15:23:28+00:00

In August DEFRA’s website made the following announcement about the introduction of civil sanctions into the environmental permitting regime:

“We updated you in February about a delay in progressing the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations, pending a cross Government position on civil sanctions for England more generally before measures in specific sets of regulations are taken forward. While this has been resolved, we are now having to satisfy additional scrutiny requirements and expect the regulations now to be laid in the Autumn in England and Wales, coming into force on 6 April 2012 ...”.

The promptness requirements in non-EC law case

2011-11-09T15:19:41+00:00

On 8 September 2011 David Elvin Q.C. (sitting as a Deputy High Court judge) refused permission for judicial review in the case of R (Macrae) v. Herefordshire District Council (unreported). David Elvin Q.C. rejected the contention that the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in C-406/08 Uniplex (UK) Ltd v. NHS Business Services Authority (“Uniplex”) could apply to claims which did not raise an issue of EU law and that the Claimant consequently had to show that he had issued his claim promptly.

“Dark” and light – as a planning issue

2011-11-04T11:43:57+00:00

On 13 October 2011 the Infrastructure Planning Commission issued a decision and statement of reasons on the first project it has determined. It approved Covanta Energy’s 65-megawatt Rookery South energy from waste facility, proposed for a former brick clay extraction pit near Stewartby in Bedfordshire. The decision follows a six month examination of the application by a panel of three Commissioners.

One aspect of the decision which may not get much attention is the Panel’s consideration of the issue of lighting.

The Court of Justice of the European Union hears Belgian references on scope of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive

2011-10-28T11:39:09+00:00

The Court of Justice of the European Union (Fourth Chamber) today held a hearing in Case C-567/10 Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL & Others v Government of the Brussels-Capital Region.

The questions referred by the Cour constitutionnelle were:

“(1) Must the definition of 'plans and programmes' in Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment be interpreted as excluding from the scope of that directive a procedure for the total or partial repeal of a plan such as that applicable to a 'plan particulier d'affectation du sol' (specific land-use plan), provided for in Articles 58 to 63 of the Code bruxellois de l'Aménagement du Territoire (Brussels Town and Country Planning Code)?

(2) Must the word 'required' in Article 2(a) of that directive be understood as excluding from the definition of 'plans and programmes' plans which are provided for by legislative provisions but the adoption of which is not compulsory, such as the specific land-use plans referred to in Article 40 of the Brussels Town and Country Planning Code?”

The promptness requirements in non-EC law case

2011-09-19T11:33:25+00:00

On 8 September 2011 David Elvin Q.C. (sitting as a Deputy High Court judge) refused permission for judicial review in the case of R (Macrae) v. Herefordshire District Council (unreported).