Category: In The Crosshairs

🔍 Why Planning Manipulation Should Be a Criminal Offence

Supplementary Note: Legal Reform to Prevent Developer Deception in Planning | Follow-up correspondence to Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP and Ministerial Referral Request

📌 What’s the Problem?

Right now, developers and landowners can:

  • Mislead councils with carefully crafted but false or incomplete data
  • Suppress land to manipulate housing supply figures
  • Fragment sites to avoid environmental checks
  • Deliver consultations that say little — and hide even more

And they do this knowing one thing:
There is no real legal risk.

Unless there’s proven criminal intent — and even then — the police and CPS typically won’t act. Councils don’t have the power or budget. Meanwhile, the public loses trust, infrastructure falls behind, and housing policy is warped.

⚖️ But What If This Was Finance?

If a company inflated its stock price by releasing false information, or coordinated with others to suppress market supply, that would be market manipulation — a crime. The UK criminalised this years ago because unchecked distortion causes systemic harm.

In finance:

  • Making false or misleading statements = crime
  • Withholding key information = crime
  • Creating false impressions = crime

In planning:

  • The same conduct = “business as usual”

🧠 Why This Analogy Matters

🔁 Let’s connect the dots:

In FinanceIn Planning
Stock priceHouse price & land value
InvestorCouncil & public
Market distortionPlanning distortion
Insider coordinationDeveloper coordination
FCA enforcementNo equivalent

The system is being knowingly gamed — and just like in finance, it needs a legal firewall.

📜 How Stock Manipulation Became a Crime

🔹 Step 1: Patterns of Abuse

  • Market crashes
  • Widespread investor harm
  • Collusion and price distortion

Governments didn’t wait for one scandal — they recognised a pattern of abuse, hidden behind technical processes and legal grey areas.

🔹 Step 2: Legal Reform

  • FSMA 2000 created civil offences for market abuse
  • Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) (now UK law) criminalised:
    • False/misleading info
    • Fake trading activity
    • Concealed positions used to distort market outcomes

These changes weren’t radical. They were the baseline for system integrity.

🧱 The Same Needs to Happen in Planning

Planning allocates:

  • Land
  • Infrastructure
  • Community trust

But it has no equivalent protections. That’s why we propose:

🧾 The Solution: A Simple Legislative Mechanism

We are calling on Parliament to adopt:

  1. A statutory duty of candour in planning submissions
  2. A new criminal offence:
    “Planning Fraud by Misrepresentation or Omission”
  3. A mandatory referral mechanism for Local Planning Authorities to report suspicious or coordinated submissions
  4. Whistleblower protections for professionals who see what’s happening and speak up

✅ Bottom Line

If you lie to distort financial markets, you risk prosecution.
If you lie to distort planning decisions, you still get planning permission.

That needs to change.

This proposal isn’t about punishing developers — it’s about rebuilding public confidence, enforcing truth in policy-making, and ensuring planning decisions are based on reality, not manipulation.

Supplementary Note: Legal Reform to Prevent Developer Deception in Planning | Follow-up correspondence to Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP and Ministerial Referral Request

Dear Rt Hon Damian Hinds,

Thank you once again for your engagement on the issue of developer manipulation and fraud within the planning system. I am grateful that your office has offered to pass my original proposal to the relevant Minister, and I write now to formally support that referral — but also to expand upon it.

Email:
 Contact Matthew Pennycook

Email:
 Contact Angela Rayner

Email:
 Contact Damian Hinds

I respectfully request that this letter be forwarded not only to Matthew Pennycook MP, Minister of State for Housing and Planning, but also to Angela Rayner MP, as Secretary of State. Given the systemic nature of the issue, I believe ministerial awareness must extend beyond technical planning processes to questions of legal integrity and public accountability at the national level.

📌 The Legal Gap Exists — and Its Effects Are Ongoing

As set out in my original letter and one-page proposal, enclosed with my previous correspondence, there is a growing body of evidence that developers are exploiting a regulatory void — one that allows them to:

  • Fragment large sites to bypass EIA thresholds
  • Suppress deliverable sites to influence housing land supply
  • Submit misleading viability appraisals
  • Misrepresent or neutralise public consultation input

Currently:

  • The Fraud Act 2006 requires narrow, provable intent
  • Planning law is civil and lacks prosecutorial enforcement
  • Police and CPS avoid intervention, even in cases of clear coordination

The result: behaviour that would be considered market abuse in finance is, in planning, routine and consequence-free.

⚖️ The Precedent: Financial Regulation as a Model

The evolution of UK financial legislation provides a proven structure. The FSMA 2000, the EU Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) (retained in UK law), and related enforcement tools were introduced to address widespread systemic distortion.

These reforms were not born of one scandal — they arose from repeated, visible patterns of behaviour that eroded market integrity.

Planning is no less significant than capital markets: it allocates land, infrastructure, and public trust. Yet deception in this space is treated only as policy manipulation — not fraud.

🛠️ A Framework for Reform

To build on the originally proposed offence of “Planning Fraud by Misrepresentation or Omission”, I now outline the following expanded structure:

  1. Statutory Duty of Candour in planning submissions — applying to developers, landowners, agents, and consultants.
  2. Criminal Offence for submitting material information that is false, misleading, or incomplete — where the party ought reasonably to have known its significance.
  3. Mandatory Reporting protocols for Local Planning Authorities to refer suspected coordination or misrepresentation to a national enforcement body — akin to FCA Suspicious Transaction Reports.
  4. Whistleblower Protections for planning professionals, consultants, and officers who identify systemic misconduct.

These proposals are rooted in existing legislative tools — particularly from financial law — and could be adopted without fundamentally altering the structure of the planning system.

🗳️ Request for Ministerial Consideration and Parliamentary Support

I would be grateful if:

  • You would forward this letter and the enclosed materials to both Matthew Pennycook MP and Angela Rayner MP for their formal consideration;
  • You would continue to support the issue in Parliament — through questions, statements, or sponsorship of a potential Private Member’s Bill;
  • You would confirm whether a formal review of this legal gap may be pursued within DLUHC or through the Select Committee in the future.

I remain committed to working constructively on this issue and would welcome the opportunity to provide further detail or consultation as needed.

Yours sincerely,
Sophia Davenport

🧾 Update: Parliamentary Request for Action on Planning Fraud and Developer Deception
🔍 Why Planning Manipulation Should Be a Criminal Offence

🧾 Update: Parliamentary Request for Action on Planning Fraud and Developer Deception

    Proposal
    Supplementary Note
    Supplementary Note – Legal Reform to Prevent Developer Deception in Planning-r

    🏠 The Hidden Economics: Landbanking, House Prices, and the “Need” Myth

    Local authorities should function like dialysis — not to cure the disease, but to filter out harm, maintain system function, and prevent collapse while the root pathology is addressed.

    But the core disease here is not poor planning. It’s an organised, developer-aligned oligarchy — not yet criminal by classification, but operating in sync, exploiting loopholes, applying pressure to an already compromised system, and then presenting themselves as the solution. It’s not just corruption of process; it’s a system under stress, being deliberately stressed further for gain.

    Housing targets themselves – as they are calculated now – are not fixed metrics; they are reactive. They rise in areas where house prices rise faster than wages. If the key driver is the Affordability Ratio — the ratio of median house prices to median local earnings — then the higher the ratio, the greater the assumed “need” for housing, and the higher the target — regardless of whether local supply is being withheld or manipulated upstream.

    🧠 Context:

    If you think of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as the diagnostic filter used to protect a critically ill patient on dialysis — identifying external stressors that could trigger collapse — then the EIA screening opinion is like triage: does the proposed intervention (the development) show symptoms or risk factors that justify closer investigation to protect the patient — the land, the community, the environment?

    Legally, councils are required to give reasons for why an EIA is or isn’t needed. But in practice — by their own choice, since nothing in the NPPF prevents them from designing a more robust process — many Local Planning Authorities treat this screening as a tick-box exercise.
    They reuse vague phrases like “not likely to have significant effects,” lean on the selective blindness of individual officers — sometimes framed as “expert opinion” — ignore cumulative developments, and rely on outdated or incomplete assessments.

    It’s like checking the vitals but skipping the bloodwork — ignoring infection markers to keep the charts looking stable.
    Each individual site passes, but no one asks why systemic stress is escalating. It’s a system that refuses to detect organ rejection or environmental shock — because each stressor, viewed in isolation, still meets the baseline.

    Worse still: they get away with it — because the only way to challenge it is through Judicial Review. And very few residents or parish councils have the resources to go to court.

    Meanwhile, councillors are under political pressure to deliver housing numbers — but it is the planning officers who prepare the reasoning reports, interpret public responses, summarise consultee feedback, and determine what information is shared (or withheld) during the process. Officers who consistently deliver “results” may be mistakenly seen as high performers, even when the delivery is built on procedural shortcuts, minimised evidence, or filtered consultation.

    In this self-reinforcing cycle, councillors hear what reassures them, officers see what confirms their intent, and together, they say only what’s needed to justify hearing nothing else.

    Public consultation becomes another compromised tool.

    Instead of informed consent, it’s like giving the patient a form with the critical risk section left blank — or worse, pre-filled with misleading data — then asking them to sign off with a space that says, “Tell us something about yourself.”
    A question designed not to inform treatment, but to create the appearance of participation, while ensuring that any response can later be dismissed as non-material to the outcome.
    Omissions are routine; relevant questions go unasked; dissent is procedurally acknowledged and practically ignored.

    📍 Where We Are Now

    On 16 April 2025, I formally submitted a request for Parliamentary action to Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP, raising concerns over the growing exploitation of loopholes in the planning system by major developers.

    My submission included:

    • A letter requesting that Mr Hinds support the creation of a new criminal offence:
      “Planning Fraud by Misrepresentation or Omission”
    • A one-page proposal outlining the rationale and legal basis for this reform, including specific recommendations for Parliamentary and Select Committee action.

    Damian Hinds’ office responded supportively and offered to forward the submission to the relevant Minister for a response on whether a legal gap exists.

    I’ve confirmed that I welcome this step — but have also asked Mr Hinds to share his personal stance on the matter and consider using the other Parliamentary avenues at his disposal to support action. This issue goes beyond ministerial delegation: it is about public integrity, enforceability, and preventing systemic abuse in planning across the country.

    This is the first step in what I hope will become a wider campaign to close the legal gap around developer deception and protect communities from coordinated planning manipulation.

    More updates will follow as the response progresses.

    The Proposal

    I have asked Damian Hinds MP to:

    • Table a Private Member’s Bill, or support legal reform through other routes;
    • Refer the issue to the Housing and Local Government Select Committee;
    • Raise the matter in Parliament;
    • Use his position to support legislative engagement with DLUHC (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities).

    📉 What is Stock Market Manipulation?

    Stock market manipulation refers to deliberately misleading the market to distort prices or trading volumes for personal gain. Common forms include:

    • Pump and dump schemes (artificially inflating share price then selling)
    • Spreading false or misleading information
    • Coordinated trading to create a false sense of demand
    • Wash trading (buying and selling to yourself to simulate activity)

    ⚖️ Is It Illegal in the UK?

    Yes — under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and Market Abuse Regulation (EU MAR), such conduct is strictly prohibited. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) can:

    • Impose fines
    • Ban individuals from working in financial services
    • Pursue criminal charges, which can carry up to 7 years’ imprisonment

    🧩 So Why Is This Relevant?

    Because in the planning system:

    Developers can as of yet legally engage in landbanking, planning pressure tactics, and even site suppression for leverage — all of which are comparable in structure to stock manipulation — but face no criminal penalties.

    In essence:

    If you manipulate shares, you risk prison.
    If you manipulate planning policy, you might get a bonus.

    Criminalising deception is a starting point — an absolute must — even if only as a preventative measure to make potential beneficiaries of such disinformation think twice before doing it again.

    Supplementary Note: Legal Reform to Prevent Developer Deception in Planning | Follow-up correspondence to Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP and Ministerial Referral Request
    🔍 Why Planning Manipulation Should Be a Criminal Offence
    🛡️ Myth vs Reality: Why Criminalising Planning Deception Is Justified

    ✊ A Word About the Campaign

    I’m just one person. A one-person orchestra trying to show the path forward — but I don’t expect things to change unless others stay vigilant too. One of the quiet goals of oligarchic systems — whether in authoritarian states or hidden within corporate lobbying — is to wear down public vigilance. To make the average person believe it’s too complicated, too fixed, or too late to challenge what’s wrong.

    But it isn’t.

    It ain’t over till the fat lady singsIt Ain’t Over Till the Fat Lady Sings: Parish Council Update on Beechlands Road Planning Application

    📍 Current Status of the Planning Application:

    StageStatusDeadlineImplication
    Committee Decision✅ ApprovedCompletedCommittee voted to approve, but not yet legally binding.
    Decision Notice❌ Not Yet IssuedAwaiting S106No formal planning permission currently exists.
    Section 106 Agreement⚠️ Still Outstanding30 April 2025 (official extension)Must be completed before the decision notice can be issued.
    S106 Final Deadline⏳ Soft LimitOctober 2025Final fallback deadline unless explicitly extended by senior officers or councillors.
    Judicial Review Window⏳ Not Yet OpenedStarts at Decision Notice publicationJR challenge can only formally start once the decision notice is published.

    What’s Happening Now?

    Despite approval by East Hampshire District Council’s (EHDC) Planning Committee, the Beechlands Road planning application is not yet legally binding. This means the final decision notice hasn’t been published, and planning permission isn’t officially granted.

    Why the Delay?

    Before EHDC issues the formal Decision Notice, they must complete a Section 106 (S106) Agreement—a legal contract ensuring that developers deliver necessary infrastructure, affordable housing, or public open space. This crucial document is still outstanding, and EHDC has set a formal extension to complete it by 30 April 2025, with an ultimate fallback deadline of October 2025.

    Parish Council’s Response

    Understanding the importance of the situation, Medstead Parish Council has taken decisive steps:

    • Legal Advice: They’ve decided to seek legal opinions from two independent sources:
      • A Specialist Planning Barrister, who generously offered a free review of the Judicial Review grounds.
      • The Hampshire Association of Local Councils (HALC) Planning Consultation service.

    The Parish Council has promptly provided essential documents to the barrister.

    Next Steps

    The Parish Council will carefully review both legal opinions once received. This proactive approach ensures they’re fully informed and ready to respond swiftly and effectively.

    What Does This Mean For Residents?

    • Judicial Review: Residents still have an opportunity to challenge the decision. It’s important to note that a Judicial Review is not an appeal; rather, it examines whether the decision-making process was lawful and fair, rather than reconsidering the planning merits themselves. The Judicial Review clock only begins when EHDC publishes the formal Decision Notice.
    • Application Vulnerability: If EHDC fails to finalise the S106 Agreement by 30 April 2025, the application risks lapsing unless officially extended.
    • Stay Engaged: Community vigilance is crucial. Monitor updates closely, as the finalised S106 terms and conditions could still influence the local impact significantly.

    As always, your active involvement and support remain essential. Stay informed, stay engaged, and remember—it’s not over until the final decision notice is signed and published.

    Stay tuned to this page for further updates.

    Special thanks go to Parish Councillor Patricia Hughes and Clerk Mrs Julie Russell, whose dedication and swift actions have been instrumental in coordinating these critical efforts.

    Medstead saw a much higher proportional growth than the district average — nearly 5.5 times higher than EHDC’s overall rate

    Regulation 6(1) of the 2017 EIA Regulations:

    “A person who proposes to carry out development may request the relevant planning authority to state in writing their opinion as to whether the development is EIA development (a ‘screening opinion’).”

    ⚖️ Case law support:

    🧾 R (on the application of Wingfield) v Canterbury City Council [2019] EWHC 1975 (Admin)

    • Confirmed that an EIA screening must apply to the actual development proposed by the applicant.
    • Cannot rely on a screening opinion for a different proposal — even on the same site.

    🧾 R (Burridge) v Breckland DC [2013] – also confirms project-specific EIA obligations, especially when components are linked.

    🧷 Simple conclusion you can rely on:

    You cannot transfer or reuse a screening opinion from one developer to another, or from one application to another, even on the same land.

    If EHDC allowed this — it’s a breach of the EIA Regulations 2017.

    THE CURIOUS CASE OF UNLAWFUL RECYCLED SCREENING OPINION … No, Nicky — You Can’t Sell Expired Sausages You Found in the Neighbour’s Garden

    Once more, Nick’s creative modus operandi was brought upon us, and yea, the balance was tilted. Creativity is a fine mindset — essential, even — if you’re a fashion designer. But if it’s your foundation in accountancy, you’d be done for it. Apply with caution — if you’re a public servant!

    In a recent letter from Nick Upton, Development Manager at EHDC, we see either a profound misunderstanding of how the EIA1 Regulations apply — or something more deliberate. He writes:

    “The government does not see EIA regulations as a barrier to growth and that they will only be triggered for a small proportion of very large-scale proposals that have potential impacts outside the area they are located in, such as power stations, major urban extensions, airports for example.”

    This conveniently omits any reference to residential development and ignores how the significance of environmental effects must be judged relative to the settlement type — i.e. village versus town or city. It also skips over the requirement to consider cumulative impact, explicitly required by Schedule 3 of the 2017 EIA Regulations.

    While it’s true the government doesn’t intend EIA to be a barrier to growth, it is also true — and far more relevant — that the government requires EIA screening by law. That part, Mr Upton does not mention.

    Instead, he offers a line designed to mislead:

    “The fact that a formal EIA is not required does not mean the applicant does not need to submit environmental information… This was the case with the Beechlands Road scheme.”

    This is meant to imply that because “some environmental information” was submitted, no formal EIA screening was necessary — when in fact, the law is clear: the presence of environmental information does not override the mandatory requirement for a lawful, up-to-date EIA screening opinion.

    It’s not just misleading. It’s legally irrelevant — and procedurally flawed.

    Mr Upton carries on with his gospel:

    “You mention that the developer has fragmented the site to avoid the mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment regulations (EIA). Whilst you’ve not provided any evidence of this, in any case, the EIA regulations do allow for a consideration of cumulative developments if and when any future proposal comes forward.”

    That statement is deeply problematic — both legally and logically.

    By suggesting that cumulative impact can be assessed “if and when any future proposal comes forward,” Mr Upton engages in a classic deferral fallacy. But Schedule 3, Paragraph 1(b) of the EIA Regulations 2017 is explicit:

    “The cumulation with other existing and/or approved development.”

    This clearly includes existing and reasonably foreseeable phases, especially:

    Delaying cumulative assessment until “next time” defeats the entire purpose of EIA screening, which is to detect and prevent significant environmental harm before permission is granted.

    Mr Upton also implies it is my job as a resident to prove the developer is salami-slicing — but that is not how the law works.

    Under Schedule 3(1)(b) of the EIA Regulations 2017, and reinforced in case law (R (Burridge) v Breckland DC [2013]), it is the LPA’s legal duty to:

    • Identify potential site fragmentation, and
    • Assess cumulative impacts from related developments

    It is not the role of a resident to prove this has occurred. The responsibility lies squarely with the decision-maker — in this case, EHDC.

    And then the mind-blowing connection struck me:

    Mr Nick Upton himself was the case officer who issued the EIA screening opinion for the original 2014 application — a proposal for 144 dwellings on 4 hectares of land by Foreman Homes. That development, in scale and intensity, was more appropriate for a town, not a rural village like Medstead, and clearly posed a risk of significant environmental harm.

    And now? It just so happens that Mr Upton is also the supervising officer overseeing the Bargate Homes Phase 2 expansion — a continuation of large-scale development to the south of Medstead — and once again, no new EIA screening opinion has been issued.

    Conveniently, he appears to have:

    • Ignored the legal requirement that EIA screening opinions are non-transferable between applicants
    • Failed to apply the updated 2017 EIA Regulations, which clearly state that EIA screening opinions are only valid for three years
    • Completely overlooked the obligation to consider cumulative impact, even as Medstead experienced a 48.14% population increase from 2011 to 2021
    • Dismissed the significance of the proposal simply because the current scheme is for 62 dwellings, compared to 144 in 2014 — as though scale alone determines significance, rather than context

    To be clear: Medstead makes up just 1.76% of East Hampshire’s population, yet it absorbed 8.36% of all new housing in the district from 2011 to 2021. That level of disproportionate growth alone should have triggered an up-to-date, cumulative environmental screening.

    ⚠️ What is most outrageous?

    Planning committee members are not legal officers — they rely on the professional advice of planning officers to ensure their decisions are lawful. And yet:

    • No reference to Schedule 3 criteria was provided
    • The committee was led to believe that the 2017 EIA Regulations have somehow reduced screening obligations
    • The absence of a valid screening opinion was never disclosed

    This amounts to a misrepresentation of the legal position and likely misdirection of elected members on a matter of material legal consequence.

    This constitutes a procedural error and presents a clear ground for Judicial Review, based on misdirection and unlawful avoidance of EIA screening duties.

    Medstead saw a much higher proportional growth than the district average — nearly 5.5 times higher than EHDC’s overall rate
    Regulation 9(2) of the EIA Regulations 2017
    Regulation 6(1) of the 2017 EIA Regulations:
    📘 Schedule 2, Category 10(b) – Urban Development Projects
    1. If you think of an EIA as a full medical workup before major surgery — detailed, evidence-based, and critical — then the EIA screening opinion is like triage: do the current symptoms or known risk factors (including past conditions) justify ordering tests — in this case, a full EIA? Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) are legally required to provide reasoning for every screening decision. But too often, LPAs treat the screening as a tick-box exercise. They rely on vague boilerplate phrases like “not likely to have significant effects,” skip cumulative assessment, or recycle old screening opinions from unrelated applications. Worst of all: they get away with it unless someone legally challenges them. And yes, EIA screening opinions can be legally challenged via Judicial Review. ↩︎

    ⚖️ Can Developers Be Held Accountable for Salami-Slicing?

    ✅ 1. Refusal or Retrospective Screening

    If it becomes clear that a developer intentionally split a site to avoid triggering EIA:

    • The LPA can refuse subsequent applications on environmental grounds
    • The Secretary of State can direct that EIA is required under Regulation 5(7)

    👉 This doesn’t punish the developer directly, but it prevents the avoidance from succeeding.

    ✅ 2. Judicial Review (JR) – Indirect Legal Exposure

    While JR is aimed at the LPA, not the developer, it can still:

    • Invalidate planning permission granted based on flawed screening
    • Delay the developer’s project
    • Force a full EIA and resubmission, often with public backlash and added cost

    👉 A developer who is seen to have manipulated the process can lose time, money, and reputation.

    ✅ 3. Environmental offences under broader law

    In extreme cases, a developer could fall foul of:

    • The Environmental Protection Act 1990, if harm is caused and concealed
    • Misrepresentation in planning documents (can lead to enforcement action or judicial consequences)

    ⚠️ But this would usually require:

    • Intentional deceit (e.g. knowingly misleading the LPA)
    • Evidence of environmental harm or risk concealed by phasing

    ✅ 4. Challenge via Secretary of State (Call-in powers or EIA direction)

    Under Regulation 5(7) and Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State can:

    • Intervene and require an EIA for what appears to be a fragmented or disguised larger development
    • This can be triggered by public or councillor pressure

    🧠 Summary:

    Legal ToolWho It TargetsOutcome
    Judicial ReviewLPA (indirectly affects developer)Invalidates permission
    Reg. 5(7) EIA DirectionDeveloper/projectForces full EIA
    Enforcement / refusalDeveloperBlocks or delays application
    Secretary of State call-inBothSuspends and reopens application

    📌 Final Thought:

    While developers aren’t prosecuted criminally for salami-slicing, their schemes can be legally derailed if challenged correctly. What matters most is exposing the pattern — which your case does effectively

    📘 Schedule 2, Category 10(b) – Urban Development Projects

    This is the category most relevant to residential developments.

    A project falls under Schedule 2 (so may require EIA) if it:

    🔹 Includes more than 1 hectare of urban development, OR
    🔹 Involves more than 150 dwellings, OR
    🔹 Has a site area exceeding 5 hectares

    ✅ If any one of those is true, then screening is mandatory (Regulation 6), and the LPA must decide whether a full EIA is required based on Schedule 3 criteria (i.e., risk of significant environmental effects).

    🧾 Regulation Summary:

    CriterionThresholdTriggers Mandatory Screening?
    Site area> 0.5 hectares✅ Yes (if Schedule 2 applies)
    Dwelling number> 150 dwellings✅ Yes
    Total site area> 5 hectares✅ Yes
    Sensitive locationAny size or number✅ Yes — must always be screened

    🔺 Important Note on Sensitive Areas:

    If the site is in or near a Sensitive Area, screening is mandatory regardless of size.

    “Sensitive areas” include:

    • Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
    • AONBs
    • National Parks
    • Conservation Areas (in some cases)
    • World Heritage Sites
    • Ancient woodland (may be a material consideration)

    🧠 Key Point:

    These are screening triggers — they don’t automatically require a full EIA, but they require the LPA to conduct an EIA screening opinion to decide if one is needed based on the likely significance of environmental effects.

    ⚖️ Main Changes to EIA Rules Since 2013

    ✅ 1. New EIA Regulations

    🗓️ In 2017, the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 replaced the 2011 version.

    These brought UK law in line with EU Directive 2014/52/EU, which strengthened environmental safeguards.

    ✅ 2. Stronger Legal Duty to Consider Schedule 3 Factors

    • In 2011, Schedule 3 criteria (like cumulative impacts, sensitive location, etc.) were considered best practice.
    • Under the 2017 Regulations, Regulation 6(4): LPAs must take into account all Schedule 3 selection criteria when issuing a screening opinion.

    📌 This is now mandatory — not optional.

    ✅ 3. Validity Period Introduced (3 Years)

    • Under the 2011 regs, screening opinions had no expiry.
    • Now, under Regulation 9(2) of the 2017 Regulations: A screening opinion expires after 3 years, unless a planning application has been submitted.

    ✅ 4. Greater Public Transparency

    • LPAs must now:
      • Publish screening and scoping opinions online
      • Provide a “statement of reasons” (Reg. 5(6) and Reg. 29) for why an EIA is or isn’t required
    • This didn’t exist under the 2011 rules.

    ✅ 5. Expanded Scope of Environmental Effects

    • EIA must now assess:
      • Population and human health
      • Climate change (resilience and emissions)
      • Material assets and cultural heritage
      • Land take, resource use, vulnerability to major accidents

    📌 These were previously vague or missing in 2011.

    ✅ 6. New Right to Request a Scoping Opinion (Reg. 15)

    • Previously, scoping was informal or LPA-led.
    • Now, developers can request a formal Scoping Opinion, and LPAs must consult statutory consultees and respond in writing within 5 weeks.

    🔄 What Stayed the Same?

    Element2011 Regs2017 Regs
    Schedule 2 categories✔️✔️ (same structure)
    Thresholds (e.g. 150 dwellings)✔️✔️
    “Likely significant effects” test✔️✔️ (but now explicitly bound to Schedule 3)

    🧠 Summary: What changed most importantly since 2013?

    ChangeWhy It Matters
    🟩 Mandatory Schedule 3 considerationLPAs can no longer ignore cumulative or locational risk
    🟨 3-year expiry on screening opinionsStops developers “banking” old EIA-free decisions
    🟧 Greater transparency + public accessMakes it easier to challenge flawed screenings
    🟥 Expanded environmental scopeDevelopers must consider health, climate, resilience, etc.

    Regulation 9(2) of the EIA Regulations 2017

    🧾 Regulation Reference:

    Regulation 9(2), EIA Regulations 2017:

    “A screening opinion… shall be treated as no longer effective if a subsequent application for planning permission is not made within a period of 3 years…”

    So even if the 2014 screening covered the land — that determination cannot be relied upon now for planning or legal purposes.

    ⏳ There is an expiration on EIA screening opinions

    An EIA screening opinion expires after 3 years from the date it was issued, unless:

    • A planning application has been submitted, and
    • Substantive work has started on the development.