Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838 Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Robert McCracken and Mr Gregory Jones (instructed by Richard Buxton) for the Claimant Mr Timothy Straker QC and Mr Paul Greatorex (instructed by North Yorkshire County Council Legal Department) for the First Defendant Mr Philip Sales and Mr James Maurici (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Second Defendant Mr Thomas Hill (instructed by Walker Morris) for the Interested Party ____________________
ii) The same point lies at the heart of the decision of the House of Lords in R v. LB Hammersmith and Fulham, ex parte Burkett [2002] UKHL 23 , [2002] 3 All ER 97 , in which it was held that time for bringing an application for judicial review runs from the grant of planning permission, not from the date of the resolution to grant it. An important part of the reasoning was that until the actual grant of planning permission the resolution has no legal effect and the authority has a discretion to revoke it (see e.g. per Lord Steyn at para 39).
iii) The general principle of the directive is that "development consent" should be granted only after prior assessment of the likely environmental effects. One would expect the "development consent" for present purposes to be the actual grant of planning permission which authorises the relevant development, rather than a resolution which in itself has no legal effect.
iv) The EIA Regulations tie the assessment requirements into existing planning procedures, as permitted by article 2(2) of the directive. The GDPO 1995 forms part of those planning procedures. Reg. 3(1), which provides that the regulation applies to EIA applications received on or after a certain date, refers expressly to the GDPO 1995, stating that the date of receipt of an application is to be determined in accordance with article 20(3) of the Order.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Put your case reading into practice. The free readiness diagnostic covers SQE1 subjects and highlights where to revise next. No account needed.
Try the free SQE1 diagnosticMultiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
[2025] UKUT 168 (AAC)
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.