Maureen Smith (Claimant/Appellant) – and – Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions & ors (Defendant/Respondent)

This was an appeal against a decision to dismiss an appeal, brought under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. The claimant sought to challenge the decision of the first defendant, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who by his Inspector granted planning permission in respect of a proposed development at Buck Park Quarry subject to certain conditions. The effect of the decision was to extend a prior planning permission for the extraction of stone from Buck Park Quarry so as to extend the period for which permission had been granted, permit an increase in the depth of extraction at the quarry, and at the same time to facilitate the use of the quarry for the landfill disposal of up to 250,000 tonnes per annum of controlled waste. According to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations, 1988, an Environmental Statement was required. The Statement required identification of any significant impact on the environment, and identification of mitigating measures to deal with that impact, and the regulations required the planning authority or the Inspector on an appeal to take into consideration the Statement. There was a question as to the extent to which the Inspector had to make it an obligation of the applicant to carry out mitigating measures, and the extent to which the Inspector could leave the obligation to carry out mitigation measures to a third party, in this instance the Local Planning Authority. The claimant lived less than a mile from the proposed development. The claimant’s concern was that the grant of planning permission to extend time, to increase the depth of workings and to permit the site to be used for the landfill disposal of controlled waste could generate considerable traffic, noise and other nuisance damage particularly from dust, odors or vermin. The Court emphasized that any major development project would be subject to a number of detailed controls, not all of them included within the planning permission. Emissions to air, discharges into water, disposal of the waste produced by the project, would all be subject to controls under legislation dealing with environmental protection. In assessing the likely significant environmental effects of a project the local planning authority were entitled to rely on the operation of those controls with a reasonable degree of competence on the part of the responsible authority. When consideration was being given to the impact on the environment in the context of a planning decision, it was permissible for the decision-maker to contemplate the likely decisions that others would take in relation to details where those others have the interests of the environment as one of their objectives. In the view of the Court, the Inspector having set the parameters of the planning permission, including contours of the land and the provision of trees, was entitled to consider how the Local Planning Authority was likely to deal with the details and to conclude that the way the details would be dealt with would mitigate the adverse effect on the environment. The inspector had legitimately assessed the impact by reference to the likelihood of the way which the local planning authority would act. The appeal was dismissed.