EIA, SEA and AA, present position: Where are we now?

Journal of Planning and Environment Law

Volumn , Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1515-1532

  Robert McCracken, Q C ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Appropriate assessments; Environmental impact assessments; EU law; Strategic environmental assessments

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; EUROPEAN UNION; STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT;

EID: 79959228690     PISSN: 03074870     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (156)

1. "In the middle of the journey of our life I came to myself within a dark wood where the straight way was lost..." Dante: Inferno: Canto 1:11.
2. Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora [1992] OJ 120677 (which applies (art.7)
3. not only to species and Special Areas of Conservation recognised under Directive 92/43/EC but also to Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds [1979] OJ L 103/1.).
4. Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment [1985] OJ L 175/40 as amended by 97/11 and 2003/35.
5. Directive 2001/42 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment [2001] OJ L 197/30.
6. The witty characterisation by Carawath L. J. n Jones v Mansfield [2003] EWCA Civ 1408 of some challengers' irredentist approach.
7. Lord Steyn went on to say that: "The Directive creates rights for individuals enforceable in the courts: World Wildlife Fund (WWF) v Autonome Provinz Bozen (C-435/97) [2000] 1 C. M. L. R. 149 [69]-71];
8. Berkeley v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No. 1) [2001] 2 A. C. 603. There is an obligation on national courts to ensure that individual rights are fully and effectively protected
9. see the Berkeley case, at pp. 608D (Lord Bingham of Cornhill) and 618B-H."
10. R. (on the application of Burkett) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC (No. I) [2002] UKHL 23.
11. The post Treaty of Lisbon 2007 (in force since December 2009) equivalents to the European Treaty are provided. The Treaty on European Union is abbreviated to TEU. The Treaty on the Functioning of the Union is abbreviated to TFEU. The corresponding provisions are not always identical. For example in the English version, (unlike the equally authoritative German version,) "all appropriate measures" has become "any appropriate measure").
12. Aannamaersbedrijf PK Kraaijveld BV v Gedeputeerde Stolen van Zuid-Holland ("Dutch Dykes") (C-72/95) [1997] All E. R. (EC) 134;
13. [1997] Env L. R. 265 at[31] and[39].
14. F. Fisher provides an illuminating discussion in "Precaution, Precaution, Everywhere, Developing a 'Common Understanding' of the Precautionary Principle in the European Community" (2002) 9 Maastricht Journal of International and Comparative Law 7.
15. Despite the difficulties of definition well illustrated in one distinguished commentator's view that "Attempting to define the precautionary principle in such a way that it could be simply and comprehensively applied to give clear answers in any particular case is a thankless and probably pointless task" Maria Lee, "EU Environmental Law" (2002) Hart Oxford and Portland.
16. The principle has been regularly invoked in the endless quest for the meaning of the term "waste" whose definition has been thereby broadened with the effect that the control of the safeguards of the Waste Directive 75/442 on waster [1975] OJ LI 14/9 has thereby been extended.
17. In Criminal Proceedings against Van de Walle (C-1/03) [2005] All E. R. (EC) 1139 the court held that an accidental spillage and the soil thereby contaminated could be regarded as waste. An important part of its reasoning was the purpose of the Directive understood in the light of the aim of a 'high level of protection' for the environment and the precautionary and preventive principles.
18. Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (C-127/02) [2004] E. C. R. I 7405. The cockle fishers recently lost their case brought in the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that they had had no opportunity to answer the AG's Opinion.
19. R. (on the application of Baker) v Bath and North East Somerset DC (2009) 48 E. H. R. R. SE 18;
20. [2009] Env L. R. 27.
21. Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora [1992] OJ 1206/77 art.6 (3).
22. Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (C-127/02) [2004] E. C. R. 17405 at [43] and [44]
23. Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora [1992] OJ 1206/7 art.6 (4).
24. Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment [1985] OJ L1 75/40 Annex IV (4) and art.5 (2).
25. See, e.g. Sandale Developments [2010] N. I. Q. B. 43.
26. R. v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Exp. Duddridge [1996] Env L. R. 325.
27. Smith J., giving the lead judgement in the Divisional Court, observed at first instance '"I am prepared to accept that, if the Secretary of State is shown to be under an obligation to apply the precautionary principle to legislation concerned with health in the environment, the possibility of harm raised by the existing state of scientific knowledge is such that it would oblige him to apply it in considering whether to issue regulations to restrict exposure to EMFs. He would at least in my view be obliged to conduct the cost benefit analysis necessary for a proper application of the principle. The Secretary of State accepts that he has not considered the precautionary principle, except to the limited extent required by policy set out in the 1990 White Paper. If he were under an obligation to apply the principle I would be in favour of granting relief limited to requiring the Sof S to reconsider the need for the regulation of EMFs in the light of the principle".
28. R. (on the application of Morge) v Hampshire CC [2010] EWCA Civ 608.
29. Also see [2010] J. P. L. 1587.
30. See R. (on the application of Morge) v Hampshire CC [2010] EWCA Civ 608 at[8], [9] and [37].
31. R. v Durham CC Exp. Huddleston [2000] 1 W. L. R. 1484 at p. 1490 [10]
32. (Marleasing SA v La Comercial International de Alimentacion SA (C-106/89) [1990] E. C. R. 1-4135 [8].
33. R. v Durham CC Exp. Huddleston [2000] 1 W. L. R. 1484
34. R. (on the application of Wells) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (C-201/02) [2004] E. C. R. 1-723
35. R. (on the application of Barker) v Bromley LBC (C-290/03) [2006] Q. B. 764.
36. Likely to be unsuccessful. The CA, without considering Syndicat Professional Coordination des Pecheurs de I 'Etang de Berre et de la Region v Electricite de France (EDF) (C213/03) [2004] E. C. R. 1-7357;
37. [2004] Env L. R. 232
38. thought it was not directly effective in Morgan v Hinton Organics [2009] EWCA Civ 107 at [50]
39. An ECJ judicial trend against direct effect appears in International Association of lndependent Tanker Owners (Inlertanko) v Secretary of State for Transport (C-308/06) [2008] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 260;
40. [2008] 3 C. M. L. R. 9.
41. Sharpston Art Gen in her Opinion in Lesoochranarske zoskupenie VLK v Ministervo zivrotneho prostredia Slovenskej republiky (C-240/09) considers that art.9 (3) is not directly effective under EU law [87] and [93]. The Convention should nevertheless be a consideration of importance in a domestic context (Exp. Brind [1991] 1 A. C. 696
42. Boyce [2005] 1 A. C. 400 at [81] and Sharpston AG at [92].
43. Syndicat Professionnel Coordination des Pecheurs de l 'Etang de Berre el de la Region v Electricile de France (EDF) (C213/03) [2004] E. C. R. 1-7357;
44. [2004] Env L. R. 232.
45. Garner v Elmbridge DC [2010] EWCA Civ 1006 at [32] and [46].
46. R (on the application of Goodman) v Lewisham LBC (the "Big Yellow Case ") [2003] EWCA Civ 140.
47. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/293) as amended, e.g., by Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/2335).
48. e.g. Circular 2/99 is now long out of date. It has been supplemented, but not comprehensively updated, by letters from the Government to chief planning officers.
49. R. (on the application of Burkett) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC (No. 1) [2002] UKHL 23.
50. Mageean v Secretary of Stale for Communities and Local Government (unrep July 28, 2010) HH Judge Robinson sitting as a DHCJ.
51. Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (C-127/02) [2004] E. C. R. I 7405.
52. Jones v Mansfield it HC [51] quoted at Court of Appeal [20] endorsed by the Court of Appeal at [38].
53. Beltway URS v Gillespie [2003] EWCA Civ 400.
54. Bellway URS v Gillespie [2003] EWCA Civ 400 per Laws L. J. at [46]
55. Bellway URS v Gillespie [2003] EWCA Civ 400 per Arden L. J. at [49].
56. Beltway URS v Gillespie [2003] EWCA Civ 400 per Pill L. J. at [37].
57. Beltway URS v Gillespie [2003] EWCA Civ 400 per Pill L. J. at [26].
58. Sullivan J. in R. (on the application of Lebus0) v South Cambridgeshire DC [2002] EWHC 2009 (Admin).
59. Pill L J. in Catt v Brighton [2007] EWCA Civ 298 at [33]-[37].
60. R. (on the application of Barker) v Bromley LBC [2001] EWCA Civ 1766.
61. Edwards v Environment Agency [2008] UKHL 22.
62. Edwards v Environment Agency [2008] UKHL 22 at [82]-[83].
63. England v LB Tower Hamlets [2006] EWCA Civ 1744 at [8] and [9].
64. Cf. the rejected argument in Jennison v Baker [1972] Q. B. 52 that a landlady could not be committed to prison for contempt of court in disobeying an order not to harass a tenant or her cat because she had killed the cat
65. The lawfulness of which was affirmed in Homer v Lancashire CC [2007] EWCA Civ 784.
66. Cross boundary elements must be cumulate for screening Umweltanwall von Karnten v Kamtner Landesregierung (C-205/08) [2010] 2 C. M. L. R. 19.
67. Aannamaersbedrijf PK Kraaijveld BV v Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland (C-72/95) [1997] All E. R. (EC) 134.
68. Abraham v Region Wallonne (C-2/07) [2008] E. C. R. 1-1197.
69. Ecologistas en Accion-CODA v Ayuntamiento de Madrid (C-142/07) [2009] P. T. S. R. 458.
70. R. (on the application of Bakerjv Bath and North East Somerset DC [2010] 1 P.& C. R.4.
71. Brown v Carlisle [2010] EWCA Civ 253.
72. R. (on the application of Mellor) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (C-75/08) [2010] P. T. S. R. 880.
73. R. v Durham CC Exp. Huddleston [2000] 1 W. L. R. 1484.
74. Smith v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003] E WCA Civ 262.
75. R. v Cornwall CC Exp. Hardy [2001] Env L. R. 26.
76. Francovichv Italy (C-6/90) [1991] E. C. R. 1-5357 at [36].
77. Berkeley v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No. I) [2001] 2 A. C. 603.
78. Uniplex (UK) Ltd v NHS Business Services Authority (C-406/08) [2010] P. T. S. R. 1377.
79. It was not followed in a HCJ QBD permission hearing R. (on the application of Pampisford Estates) v SSCLG which took place between the publication of the AG's Opinion and the delivery of the Judgement of the ECJ. Permission was also refused for substantive reasons which made an appeal inappropriate.
80. Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (C-427/07) [2009] E. C. R. 1-6277.
81. Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (C-215/06) [2008] E. C. R. 1-4911 at [54)-[60].
82. i.e. by the competent authority/planning authority.
83. R. (on the application of Prokopp) v London Underground Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 961.
84. Ardagh Glass Ltdv Chester City Council [2010] EWCA Civ 172.
85. Article 249 EC/288 TFEU.
86. Van Duyn v Home Office (41/74) [1974] E. C. R. 1337.
87. Enka BVv Jnspecteur der Invoerrechten enAccijnzen (C-38/77) [1977] E. C. R. 2203 at 2226
88. and the ECJ 's judgment in Pubblico Ministero v Ratti (148/78) [1979] E. C. R. 1629 at [22].
89. See Van Gerven AG's Opinion in Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group (C-262/88) [1990] E. C. R 1-1889.
90. Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire AHA (152/84) [1986] E. C. R. 723
91. and Faccini Dori v Recreb Sri (C91/92) [1994] E. C. R. I 3325.
92. Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire AHA (C-271/91) [1993] E. C. R. I-4367
93. and Vaneetveld v Le Foyer SA (C-316/93) [1994] E. C. R. 1-763.
94. Aannamaersbedrijf PK Kraaijvetd BV v Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland (C-72/95) [1996] E. C. R. 15403.
95. World Wildlife Fund (WWF) v Autonome Provinz Bozen (C-435/97) [1999] E. C. R. 1-5613.
96. Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment [1985] OJ L 175/40.
97. R. (on the application of Wells) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (C-201/02) [2004] E. C. R. 1-723.
98. Article 5 (1).
99. R. v Durham CC Exp. Huddleston [2000] 1 W. L. R. 1484.
100. FrateIli Costanzo SpA v Comune di Milano (103/88) [1989] E. C. R. 1839;
101. [1990] 3 C. M. L. R. 239.
102. R. vNorth Yorkshire Exp. Brown [2000] 1 A. C. 397.
103. R. (on the application of Wells) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (C-201/02) [2004] E. C. R. 1-723.
104. R. v North Yorkshire Exp. Brown [2000] 1 A. C. 397.
105. R v North Yorkshire Exp. Brown [2000] 1 A. C. 397 at [46] and [47].
106. R. v North Yorkshire Exp. Brown [2000] 1 A. C. 397 at [56]-[58].
107. Lord Steyn's observation in R. (on the application of Burkett) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC (No. I) [2002] UKHL 23 that "The Directive seeks to redress to some extent the imbalance in resources between promoters of major developments and those concerned, on behalf of individual or community interests, about the environmental effects of such projects" ([15]) not only reflects an appreciation of the value of participatory democracy and the economic obstacles to its realisation in practice but also acknowledges implicitly that a burden is imposed by the Directive on promoters of projects as well as the state.
108. R. (on the application of Burkett) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC (No. I) [2002] UKHL 23 at [52]-[54].
109. R. (on the application of Barker) v Bromley LBC (C-290/03) and R. (on the application of Barker) v Bromley LBC (C-290/03) [2006] Q. B. 764.
110. R. (on the application of Barker) v Bromley LBC [2001] E WCA Civ 1766.
111. Humblet v Belgium (6/60) [1960] E. C. R. 559.
112. Francovich v Italy (C-6790) [1991] E. C. R. I 5357 at [36].
113. Francovich v Italy (C-6790) [1991] E. C. R. I 5357 [65]-[69].
114. Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ss.97-104.
115. Which according to a decision of Richards J. as he then was is not a factor which planning authorities may take into account when deciding whether or not to exercise this power R. v Secretary of State Exp. Anwick DC. It is difficult to think that this decision could ever survive scrutiny by a higher court, as it inevitably encourages in many cases either intellectually dishonest decision making or financial ruin.
116. CPR 52 see FantaskA/SvIndustriministeriet (Erhvervsministeriet) (CI88/95) [1998] All E. R. (EC) 1;
117. [1997] E. C. R. 1-6783 and R. (on the application of Burkett) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC (No. 1)
118. [2002] UKHL. 23
119. R. v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC Exp. CPRE London Branch (Leave to Appeal) (No. 2) [2000] Env L. R. 565.
120. Some of the language in English cases such as R. v Durham CCExp. Huddleston [2000] 1 W. L. R. 1484
121. and Berkeley v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No. l) [2001] 2 A. C. 603 is of course consistent with this view. In the latter cases Lord Hoffmann observed that "The directly enforceable right of the citizen... is not merely a right to a fully informed decision on the substantive issue. It must have been adopted on an appropriate basis and that requires the inclusive and democratic procedure prescribed by the Directive [for the] public, however misguided or wrongheaded its views may be.....", (615 G).
122. Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (C-176/03) [2006] All E. R. (EC) 1 Opinion [67].
123. Antonio Munozy Cia SA v Frumar Ltd (C253/00) [2003] Ch. 328.
124. Seaport Investments Lid's Application for Judicial Review, Re [2007] NIQB 62;
125. [2008] Env. L. R. 23.
126. Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2716).
127. October 30, 1994 some months after the 2 years allowed by art.23 from publication in the OJ 12067/7 on May 21, 1992.
128. Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom (C-6/04) [2005] E. C. R. 1-9017.
129. Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/490).
130. Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom (C-6/04) [2005] E. C. R. 1-9017 Opinion June 9, 2005 at [115]
131. referring to Newsum v Welsh Assembly [2004] EWCA Civ 1565.
132. UN Doc A/CONF. 151.5 June 14, 1992.
133. R. (on the application of Brown) v Secretary of State for Transport [2003] EWHC 819 (Admin);
134. [2004] Env. L. R. 2.
135. Article 6 (3) and (4) TEU.
136. Now s.38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
137. ss.70 (2) and 77 (4) TCPA 1990.
138. R (on the application of Brown) v Secretary of State for Transport [2003] EWHC 819 (Admin);
139. [2004] Env. L. R. 2. At [44]-[47].
140. 111, R. (on the application of Brown) v Secretary of State for Transport [2003] EWHC 819 (Admin);
141. [2004] Env. L. R. 2. At [49].
142. Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom (C-6/04) [2005] E. C. R. 1-9017 at [55].
143. Boggis v Natural England [2010] EWCA Civ 1061.
144. Akester v DEFRA [2010] EWHC 232 (Admin).
145. reg.40 (3) (c) and 43 (4).
146. Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom (C-6/04) [2005] E. C. R. 1-9017 at [111]-[113].
147. Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom (C-6/04) [2005] E. C. R. 1-9017 Opinion [120].
148. Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom (C-6/04) [2005] E. C. R. 1-9017 at [115]-[119]
149. R. v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Exp. Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [2000] Env L. R. 221.
150. Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/77).
151. R. v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Exp. Greenpeace Ltd (No. I) [1998] Env L. R. 415.
152. Akester v DEFRA [2010] EWHC 232.
153. ConsiderR. v Poole BC Exp. Beebee [1991] 2 P. L. R. 27
154. or Twyford Parish Councilv Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] Env L. R. 37.
155. See, e.g. McCracken, "Infrastructure Planning Commission: Challenge or Opportunity" (2009) J. P. L. OP 37.
156. There is no greater pain than to remember happiness in misery" Dante Inferno: Canto V: 120. These words may be especially poignant in the context of s.1 12 Planning Act 2008 which broadly prohibits (rather than leaving it to the choice of the challenger) any challenge to decisions relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects (unless causing delay to the taking of a decision) until the eventual decision has been taken by the Infrastructure Planning Commission or Secretary of State.