The planning officer relied on a 2014 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening opinion—issued to a different applicant under a now-superseded regulatory framework—as justification for not requiring EIA in 2024–25. This opinion was legally expired, non-transferable, and inappropriate due to radically changed environmental and cumulative circumstances. The Planning Committee was not informed of these critical limitations, despite the officer having issued the original screening himself. This constitutes a serious procedural failing.
Annotated Quote Bundle
| 🧾 Quote | 🎯 Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| “The Local Planning Authority received a request for an EIA Screening Opinion for a scheme of up to 144 dwellings in 2014. The Local Planning Authority’s Opinion was that the scheme was not EIA development.” | Confirms officer’s justification relies on a 2014 screening opinion under older law. |
| “This application represents a reduction in housing numbers from the EIA of 144 dwellings…” | Officer argues fewer homes = less EIA need without re-screening or considering new context. |
| Original screening opinion issued on 17 Jan 2014 under 2011 Regulations to Foreman Homes. | Shows the opinion is over 10 years old, expired in 2017, and was issued to a different applicant. |
| “May be subject to change if cumulative or in-combination effects arise…” | Even the original opinion warned of the need to reassess if conditions change — which they have. |
⚖️ Legal Notes – Supporting Case Law and Regulations
Under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017:
- Regulation 6(6): A screening opinion is only valid for 3 years unless development has commenced. The 2014 opinion expired in January 2017.
- Schedule 3: Authorities must consider the cumulative impact of the development with other nearby projects. In this case:
- Medstead’s population increased by 48.14% (2011–2021)
- The village absorbed 8.36% of all EHDC housing supply
- This represents significant cumulative urbanisation
Yet:
- No formal screening opinion under the 2017 Regulations was produced or mentioned
- No cumulative effects assessment was conducted
- The Committee was not informed of these legal obligations
🧷 R (Loader) v SSCLG [2012] EWHC 869 (Admin):
Failure to update environmental screening in the face of new conditions renders the permission unlawful.
🧷 Berkeley v SSCLG [2001] 2 AC 603 (HL):
EIA is required not just for formality, but to enable full public and decision-maker engagement with the environmental consequences. Bypassing it violates procedural law.
🧷 PPG Para 018 (ID: 4-018-20170728):
“Each application must be assessed individually. Prior screening decisions do not substitute for the need to re-screen if circumstances change.”
❌ Officer Conduct and Professional Omission
Mr. Upton — the planning officer recommending approval — was also the officer who signed the 2014 screening opinion. He:
- Did not inform the Committee that the opinion had expired
- Did not disclose that it applied to a different applicant and layout
- Did not mention Regulation 6(6), Schedule 3, or the need for re-screening
- Presented the opinion as if it remained valid and applicable
This raises serious procedural questions about whether the officer:
- Misled the Committee by omission
- Failed in his statutory and ethical duty to disclose legal constraints
- Enabled the Committee to make a decision without proper environmental safeguards
✅ Summary
The Planning Officer relied on an expired, applicant-specific screening opinion issued under the 2011 Regulations without conducting a new EIA screening. He failed to disclose material facts to the Committee, including expiry rules, cumulative growth, and legal non-transferability. As the original signatory of the 2014 opinion, he had a clear duty to ensure legal compliance under the 2017 Regulations. His failure to do so represents a breach of process, resulting in a decision that was procedurally unfair, environmentally unsound, and legally vulnerable