Planning applications: Burridge v Breckland District Council
This case, in the Court of Appeal, considered the difficult but familiar point of whether a planning application, which itself proposes a ‘below the EIA threshold’ development, must be treated as part of a wider project. The case involved two separate but linked planning applications. The first — a biomass renewable energy plant — would provide gas, via an underground pipeline, to the second proposal — a CHP plant on a separate site. The two applications were ‘functionally interdependent’ — and both were on the table. The Court of Appeal quashed both permissions. The council should have treated them as a single project (‘one overall application’) for screening purposes, which would have meant the threshold would have been exceeded. The cases of Swale and Candlish were distinguished.
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Mills & Reeve briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from The Lawyer
Analysis from The Lawyer
The trend for unbundling legal work is advancing through the law firm ranks but there is still resistance in some quarters - namely in-house. We asked why