Planning Law Flashcards
R (Friends of the Earth) v Heathrow airport [2020] UKSC 52
planning law
Appeal Allowed
4 factors on what is material – not sure about this – mentioned in the tut reading i believe
- Mandatory by statute
- something is prohibited by statute
- Factors which Decision-makers may have regards if they think right to do so
- Factors that are so obviously material that the decision makers must take it into account
3 and 4 offer little guidance – fuzzy and vague
Maybe indicates that, inherently, the discretion and decision making need to be local
The lower courts found in favour but SC said that an international obligation cannot be a material consideration – need something that is at least a national statute.
Facts: On 26 June 2018, the Secretary of State for Transport designated the Airports National Policy Statement (“ANPS”) under section 5(1) of the Planning Act 2008. The NPS sets the national policy framework for the development of a third runway at Heathrow Airport to deliver additional hub airport capacity in the South East of England.
On 12 December 2015 the UK government adopted the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, which enshrines an aspiration to achieve a net zero greenhouse gas emissions level during the latter half of the 21st century.
The UK ratified the Paris Agreement on 17 November 2016. The respondents (and others) challenged the ANPS on the basis of its failure to take account of the Paris Agreement. The High Court dismissed their application for judicial review, but the Court of Appeal allowed their appeal and held that the ANPS was unlawful. The appellant, Heathrow Airport Limited appealed to the Supreme Court. In R (Friends of the Earth) v Heathrow airport [2020] UKSC 52, they argued that the Paris agreement was a material consideration in the decision to have a third runaway.
R (Finch on the behalf of the Weald Action Group) v Surrey CC [2024] UKSC 20
planning law - environmental concerns
By the 3-2 majority judgment, it determined that greenhouse gas emissions arising from the use and combustion of refined products from an oil well site, or downstream emissions, should have been included and assessed in an environmental impact assessment process for planning purposes. This landmark decision not only has implications for future fossil fuel projects in the UK, but potentially other types of projects with substantial downstream emissions which are capable of assessment or estimation – i.e. certain infrastructure, highways or aviation projects.
EIA (env. Impact Assessment). Extraction operation of fossil fuels and the EIA took into account carbon emissions only from the drilling and extraction itself but did not take account shipment of the fuels (the bulk of the emission actually happens downstream) - only includes the direct emission so it appears that the EIA is lower.
R (Mc Lennan) v Medway Council [2019].
planning law - solar pannels
Held: the planning board incorrectly decided that the claimant’s concerns about the development’s effect on his solar system were immaterial. The Court reasoned that both the Medway Local Plan and the British National Planning Policy Framework recognize the positive contribution of even small-scale renewable energy schemes to addressing climate change. The Court further held that the planning board erred in deciding that the claimant’s objection was purely a matter of private interest – as opposed to public interest – given the role of solar energy in reducing greenhouse gases. The Court accordingly quashed the permit.
In October 2017, the claimant received permission to install solar panels on the south-facing wall of his residential property in Rochester, Kent. In September 2018, the claimant’s next-door neighbor, whose detached residence lies immediately to the south of the claimant’s house, applied to the Medway Council for planning permission for the construction of a dormer. The claimant objected on the ground that the proposed development would block the sun, and adversely affect his ability to generate electricity from his solar panels. The planning board granted permission in December 2018. The claimant challenged the permit.
