Introduction

The case of Squire, R (On the Application Of) v. Shropshire Council ([2019] EWCA Civ 888) presents a pivotal moment in environmental and planning law within England and Wales. This appeal, heard by the Court of Appeal's Civil Division, centers on the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) conducted for an intensive poultry-rearing facility proposed by Mr. Matthew Bower. Ms. Nicola Squire, a local resident and appellant, challenged the planning permission granted by Shropshire Council, asserting that the council failed to properly consider the environmental implications of odour and dust resulting from manure disposal.

The core issues revolved around the interpretation and application of environmental permits under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016, the scope of the EIA conducted, and the sufficiency of measures to mitigate environmental nuisances. This commentary delves into the judgment's nuances, analyzing its implications for future planning decisions and environmental assessments.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant, Ms. Squire, sought a judicial review of the planning permission granted to Mr. Bower for establishing four poultry buildings at Footbridge Farm, near Bridgnorth. Her primary contention was that the Shropshire Council neglected to adequately assess the environmental impacts of odour and dust from manure disposal, violating EIA regulations.

Initially, the High Court dismissed her claim, concluding that the council had sufficiently considered the indirect effects through the environmental permit issued under the 2016 regulations. However, upon appeal, the Court of Appeal identified shortcomings in the council's assessment process. The appellate court determined that the EIA failed to comprehensively evaluate the indirect environmental impacts associated with manure disposal, particularly regarding odour and dust affecting third-party lands. Consequently, the court ruled that the planning permission was granted unlawfully due to the deficient EIA, thereby allowing the appeal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that shape the interpretation of EIA requirements:

• Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd. v The Scottish Ministers [2015] UKSC 74: Emphasized the necessity of objective interpretation of public documents, ensuring that permits are read within their natural and ordinary meaning.
• Abraham v Wallonia [2008] Env LR 32: Highlighted the importance of conducting EAAs at the earliest stages of project planning to prevent adverse environmental impacts.
• Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314: Reinforced that judicial review focuses on the lawfulness of decisions rather than the merits, ensuring that planning officers' reports are assessed fairly.
• Blewett v Derbyshire County Council [2003] EWHC 2775 (Admin): Acknowledged that environmental statements might not always contain full information but should be supplemented by public consultation processes.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously dissected the environmental permit's conditions, particularly focusing on condition 2.3.5, which mandates the operator to implement "appropriate measures" to prevent or minimize pollution from manure disposal. The court interpreted "pollution" to encompass odour and dust emissions, recognizing that while the primary site was under regulatory control, the off-site disposal activities, especially on third-party lands, were not sufficiently addressed.

Furthermore, the court criticized the EIA for its narrow focus, which predominantly assessed direct emissions from the poultry buildings without adequately considering the indirect impacts of manure spreading. The reliance on generalized assurances from the Public Protection Officer and planning officer, without substantive assessments of off-site impacts, was deemed insufficient.

The appellate court underscored that the EIA must comprehensively evaluate both direct and indirect environmental effects, aligning with the precautionary principle and ensuring public participation can meaningfully influence project decisions.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent, reinforcing the necessity for exhaustive environmental assessments in planning decisions, especially concerning indirect environmental impacts. Local planning authorities are now compelled to ensure that EIAs encompass all potential environmental effects, including those that transcend the immediate project site. Failure to do so may render planning permissions unlawful, as demonstrated in this case.

Additionally, the ruling delineates the boundaries of environmental permits, clarifying that while permits regulate on-site activities, off-site disposals, particularly involving third-party lands, require explicit assessment and mitigation strategies within the EIA framework.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Squire v. Shropshire Council case serves as a critical reminder of the comprehensive nature that Environmental Impact Assessments must embody. It emphasizes that planning authorities must diligently assess not only the direct but also the indirect environmental repercussions of proposed developments. The ruling ensures that environmental permits are interpreted within their rightful scope, safeguarding against oversights that can lead to unlawful planning decisions.

Moving forward, local councils and project developers must collaborate to ensure that EIAs are thorough, encompassing all facets of environmental impact, and that environmental permits are fully leveraged to mitigate both on-site and off-site effects. This case reinforces the judiciary's role in upholding environmental standards and protecting community well-being against insufficient planning assessments.