Wingfield, R (On the Application Of) v Canterbury City Council

Factual and Procedural Background

A judicial review claim was filed on 3 January 2019 by the Plaintiff, a local resident, challenging the Defendant's grant of outline planning permission on 22 November 2018 for a mixed-use development at the former Chislet Colliery site ("Chislet Site") in Kent. The Defendant is the local planning authority, and the Interested Party ("IP") is the owner of the Chislet Site and the applicant for the permission. The development proposed up to 370 dwellings and associated infrastructure on a 19.24 ha brownfield site partly designated as a Local Wildlife Site near the Stodmarsh National Nature Reserve, a European designated site.

The Plaintiff also relied on a separate judicial review claim filed on 26 March 2019 concerning a development at the adjacent Hoplands Farm site ("Hoplands Site"), comprising grassland and woodland of about 29 ha, for which the Defendant had granted outline planning permission on 5 July 2017 for up to 250 houses and community facilities. The Plaintiff challenged the Defendant's approval of reserved matters for part of the Hoplands Site on 12 February 2019.

The Plaintiff pleaded three grounds for judicial review: (1) the Defendant erred in failing to treat the two developments as a single project under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 ("EIA Regulations 2011") and the EIA Directive; (2) the Habitats Regulations Assessment ("HRA") was unlawful due to errors and failure to follow Natural England's advice; and (3) the Defendant failed to give adequate or rational reasons for granting permission. Permission was granted only for Ground 1 initially, with Grounds 2 and 3 refused. The Plaintiff later discontinued Ground 3.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant erred in law by failing to treat the Chislet Site and Hoplands Site developments as a single project for the purposes of the EIA Regulations 2011 and the EIA Directive.
2. Whether the Habitats Regulations Assessment undertaken by the Defendant was unlawful due to alleged errors, omissions, and failure to follow Natural England's advice.
3. Whether the Defendant failed to give adequate or rational reasons for granting outline planning permission.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Defendant should have treated the Chislet and Hoplands developments as a single project under the EIA Regulations 2011 and the EIA Directive, requiring a joint Environmental Impact Assessment.
• The Habitats Regulations Assessment was flawed, containing errors and omissions, lacking rigorous scientific appraisal, and departed from Natural England's advice without explanation.
• The Defendant failed to provide adequate reasons for granting outline planning permission, and the reasons given were irrational.
• The Environmental Statement inadequately assessed cumulative environmental effects due to the failure to treat the developments as a single project.

Defendant's and Interested Party's Arguments

• The two developments are separate projects, promoted and pursued independently, with no functional interdependence or common ownership.
• The Defendant complied with the EIA Regulations 2011, including cumulative effects assessments, which met the legal requirements.
• The Habitats Regulations Assessment was lawful, based on up-to-date scientific evidence and consultation with Natural England.
• The Defendant provided adequate reasons for its decisions, which were rational and lawful.
• The Plaintiff's attempt to add additional grounds beyond the originally pleaded ones was procedurally improper and unarguable.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Swale BC ex parte RSPB [1991] 1 PLR 6	Determination of whether development is a single project or part of a larger scheme for EIA purposes.	The court applied the principle that smaller developments should not be considered in isolation if they are part of a more substantial development.
Ecologistas en Accion v Ayuntamiento de Madrid [2009] PTSR 458	Prohibition on circumventing EIA requirements by splitting projects and requirement to consider cumulative effects.	The court considered whether adjacent projects should be treated together due to geographical proximity and combined effects.
Burridge v Breckland DC [2013] EWCA Civ 228	Functional interdependence and integral part test for single project designation.	The court held two developments connected by infrastructure should be treated as a single project despite geographical separation.
R (Larkfleet Ltd) v South Kesteven DC [2015] EWCA Civ 887	Cumulative effects do not necessarily mean developments are a single project; separate projects may be assessed cumulatively.	The court rejected treating linked but distinct projects as a single project, emphasizing cumulative assessment sufficiency.
Bowen-West v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] EWCA Civ 321	Differentiation between screening and scoping decisions under EIA and limits to project aggregation.	The court upheld that stand-alone projects need not be considered part of a wider integrated development absent clear connection.
Buckinghamshire CC v Secretary of State for Transport [2013] EWHC 481 (Admin)	Phased developments can be assessed separately under EIA if not part of a single project.	The court applied Bowen-West principles to reject challenge to separate assessments of HS2 phases.
Preston New Road Action Group v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 9	Distinction between salami slicing and legitimate separate project assessments with cumulative effects.	The court found no circumvention of EIA Directive where full assessments of cumulative effects were undertaken.
Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee v Staatsscretaris van Lanbouw [2005] All ER (EC) 353	Interpretation of article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive regarding appropriate assessment threshold and requirements.	The court outlined that appropriate assessments must precede approval and consider cumulative effects based on best scientific knowledge.
Sweetman v An Bord Pleanála [2014] PTSR 1092	Two-stage process under article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive for appropriate assessment and authorization.	The court confirmed the requirement for an appropriate assessment followed by authorization only if no adverse effect on site integrity.
Holohan v An Bord Pleanala EU:C:2018:883	Requirements for a lawful appropriate assessment under article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.	The court emphasized the need for complete, precise, and definitive findings dispelling reasonable scientific doubt before consent.
R (Champion) v North Norfolk DC [2015] 1 WLR 3710	Standard of appropriate assessment and the role of competent authority's judgment under Habitats Directive.	The court held that while investigation must be high standard, the ultimate decision rests on the authority's judgment.
Smyth v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWCA Civ 174	Standard of review for planning decisions involving environmental assessments is Wednesbury rationality.	The court applied a deferential standard of review for the Defendant's environmental decisions.
Mynnyd y Gwynt Ltd v Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy [2018] 2 CMLR 34	Confirmation of Wednesbury rationality as standard of review for environmental planning decisions.	The court reaffirmed the deferential standard applied to competent authorities in environmental assessments.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the factual and procedural history, the planning and environmental assessment processes, and the applicable legal framework under the EIA Directive, EIA Regulations 2011, and the Habitats Regulations 2017. The Court considered authoritative case law defining when developments should be treated as a single project for EIA purposes, including tests of common ownership, functional interdependence, simultaneous determination, and whether the developments are stand-alone projects justified independently.

Applying these factors, the Court found that the Chislet and Hoplands Sites are separate developments: they have different ownership, no functional interdependence, separate planning processes, and are capable of being developed independently. Although there are overlapping environmental effects due to proximity, this does not render them a single project; cumulative effects assessments suffice.

The Court rejected the Plaintiff's submission that the Defendant failed to decide whether the developments should be treated as a single project, finding that the Defendant properly applied the screening and scoping requirements under the EIA Regulations and rationally concluded the developments were separate.

The Court also addressed the Plaintiff's attempt to add new grounds challenging the quality of cumulative effects assessment, holding that such additions were procedurally improper and unarguable. The Environmental Statement and subsequent assessments, including updates to account for the Hoplands Site, met the legal standards required by the EIA Regulations and Directive.

Regarding the Habitats Regulations Assessment, the Court acknowledged some initial draft weaknesses but found these were corrected before finalization. It accepted the Defendant's reliance on Natural England's advice specific to the Chislet Site and rejected the Plaintiff's argument that differing advice on the Hoplands Site undermined the assessment. The Court applied the established high but appropriate standard of investigation under the Habitats Directive and concluded that the Defendant's assessment was lawful and rational.

The standard of review was Wednesbury rationality, which the Court applied, finding no public law error in the Defendant's decisions or reasoning.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the Plaintiff's claim for judicial review on all grounds.

The Defendant's grant of outline planning permission for the Chislet Site development is upheld as lawful. The Defendant was entitled to treat the Chislet and Hoplands Site developments as separate projects under the EIA Regulations 2011 and the EIA Directive, provided cumulative environmental effects were properly assessed, which they were. The Habitats Regulations Assessment complied with legal requirements and was supported by expert consultation.

No broader legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles regarding project definition under the EIA and Habitats Directives. The decision confirms the lawful approach to separate but adjacent developments and the procedural limits on amending grounds in judicial review claims.