ECJ Ruling On The Need For Councils To Give Reasons For Refusing To Require An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

The Court of Appeal referred the case of R on the application of

Mellor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local

Government to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling on the

interpretation of the 1985 Environmental Impact Assessment

Directive and whether or not it is necessary to give reasons for

the determination not to require an EIA when evaluating a request

for planning permission to build a hospital.

The planning permission was quashed by the High Court on the

ground that the council had failed to properly consider whether the

development proposal (which fell within the category of an urban

development project) should be subject to the Town and Country

Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations when the

council issued its "screening opinion".

Originally the council decided that an EIA was not required but

changed its mind following a representation by Mr Mellor. The

developer had in the meantime asked the Secretary of State for a

direction on the point. The Secretary of State also decided that no

EIA was required on the basis of the proposal would not be

likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of

factors such as its nature, size or location. Mr Mellor

applied for judicial review of this decision but the High Court

refused to grant leave on the basis of an earlier decision of the

Court of Appeal. The earlier decision had held that reasons did not

have to be given for refusing to direct that an EIA was required

and that if reasons were required, the Secretary of State had

provided adequate reasons.

On Mr Mellor's further appeal, the Court of Appeal referred

the matter to the ECJ for the preliminary ruling. The ECJ

determined that a decision not to require an EIA, did not have to

include reasons...