SKYE WINDFARM
ACTION GROUP LIMITED
for
Judicial review of decisions of Highland Council
1st February 2008
Skye
Windfarm Action Group Limited, a company which seeks to prevent inappropriate
development of onshore wind power stations, challenged the decision of the
Highland Council on 16 May 2007 to grant planning permission to a
wind farm at Edinbane, Skye by raising a petition for judicial review of the
decision.
AMEC
Project Investments Ltd ("AMEC") applied in 2001 to develop a wind farm at Edinbane
comprising 28 turbines. As a result of
concerns expressed by local people, ornithologists and environmentalists the
project was amended on a number of occasions until in August 2006 AMEC proposed
a development comprising 18 turbines.
Separate applications for temporary planning permission for borrow pits
to provide road stone for the on-site roads were also granted planning
permission.
The wind
farm application raised complex environmental and nature conservation
issues. As the project was likely to
have significant environmental effects AMEC required to produce an
environmental statement in accordance with the Environmental Impact Assessment
(Scotland) Regulations 1999. Among the environmental issues raised by
objectors was the risk of a peat slide like that which occurred in 2003 at
Derrybrien in the Republic of Ireland.
The
principal nature conservation issue which caused concern was the effect of the
wind farm on the golden eagle and other bird species. In December 2002 the Cuillins Special
Protection Area ("SPA") was classified under the Birds Directive (EC Directive
79/409) for the conservation of the golden eagle. As a result the Highland Council had to
assess the effect of proposed wind farm and a neighbouring development at Ben
Aketil on the SPA. As a result of the
environmental and nature conservation concerns and the amendments to the
project, the environmental statement
became a detailed and rather complex set of documents.
In 2006 the
Highland Council approved a non-statutory document called "Highland Renewable
Energy Strategy and Planning Guidelines" ("HRES") which was intended to provide
guidance to the planning authority and developers in relation to renewable
energy proposals in the Highlands. The Council
required to consider the Guidelines when determining the planning application
for the wind farm.
In
challenging the grant of planning permission to the wind farm and the borrow
pits, the Skye Windfarm Action Group Ltd submitted (i) that the environmental
statement which AMEC had prepared was defective in its form and also in
substance in its failure to consider alternatives and flooding risk, and in the
initial exclusion from consideration of the effect of the borrow pits; (ii)
that certain planning conditions in the permissions for the wind farm and the
borrow pits were illegal; (iii) that the Council had acted illegally in
considering the borrow pits applications separately from that for the wind
farm; (iv) that they had failed to give proper consideration to HRES; and (v) that
the Council had failed to conduct a proper assessment of the effect of the
proposal on the Cuillins SPA.
The
submissions did not succeed. They are
discussed as follows: (i) in paras 43-81, (ii) in paras 82-98, (iii) in paras
99-108, (iv) in paras 109-116 and (v) in paras 117-154.
The Court
dismissed the petition.
NOTE
This summary is provided to assist in understanding the
Court's decision. It does not form part of the reasons for that decision. The
full opinion of the Court is the only authoritative document.
Agents
J.D Campbell QC, McConnell; Morton Fraser for Skye Windfarm Action Group Limited
Tel 0141
249 6720 & 0131 247 1000
Mrs
Wolffe: Biggart Baillie for Highland Council
Tel 0141 228 8000 & 0131 226 5541
|
OUTER HOUSE, COURT OF SESSION
[2008] CSOH 19
|
|
P1828/07
|
OPINION OF LORD HODGE
in the petition of
SKYE WINDFARM
ACTION GROUP LIMITED
Petitioners;
for
Judicial review of
decisions of Highland Council dated 16
May 2007 to grant planning permission under the Town and Country
Planning (Scotland)
Act 1997 for a wind farm development and the extraction of aggregate at land
south of Edinbane, Isle of Skye
________________
|
Petitioner: J.D Campbell QC, McConnell; Morton Fraser LLP
Respondents: Mrs Wolffe: Biggart Baillie LLP
1 February 2008
[1] The
petitioners challenge the legality of decisions by the Highland Council ("the
respondents") dated 16 May 2007 to grant planning permission for a wind farm
development and the related extraction of minerals on land approximately two kilometres
south of Edinbane and eight kilometres to the east of Dunvegan, Skye. They seek a court order reducing those
decisions.
[2] The
petitioners are a company limited by guarantee which was incorporated in 2002
with the object, among others, of preventing inappropriate development of
onshore wind power stations. They have
campaigned against wind farms in Skye.
The
decisions under challenge
[3] On
16 May 2007 the respondents
granted planning permission to three closely connected developments, comprising
the wind farm development and two separate applications for borrow pits to
extract aggregate for the construction of the site roads from land in close
proximity to the site of the proposed wind farm. As narrated more fully below, in the initial
application in February 2002 the developers sought planning permission for
twenty-eight wind turbines and also for borrow pits but did not commit
themselves to a specific number or location of the borrow pits. In December 2002 the respondents received two
separate planning applications for the borrow pits. Thereafter, as a result of revisions to the
wind farm proposal, the application which the respondents eventually considered
in March 2007 was for a wind farm comprising eighteen turbines.
Title
and interest
[4] In
their written pleadings the respondents challenged the petitioners' interest to
raise the judicial review proceedings.
In the event Mrs Wolffe chose not to advance a submission of no interest
to sue but reserved the right to raise the issue again should the case go
further.
Factual
background
(a) The planning status of the wind farm
site and the Cuillins Special Protection Area
[5] The
planning status of the site of the proposed wind farm has changed with the
passage of time. It comprises open
moorland which is used for grazing sheep. There are no statutory designations
of the site in relation to natural heritage.
Both the structure plan, which was approved in March 2001, and the local
plan, which was adopted in March 1999, supported renewable energy schemes
provided that among other considerations they were not significantly
detrimental to their local environment and residential amenity. The site lies within an area which the
respondents had identified as a primary research area for wind energy in their
"Wind Energy: Regional Policy Guidelines" which they had adopted in March 1995,
but that document was superseded by the 2001 structure plan which introduced
criteria for the assessment of wind energy proposals.
[6] On
20 December 2002 land nearby was classified under EC Directive 79/409 on the
conservation of wild birds ("the Birds Directive") as the Cuillins Special
Protection Area ("SPA") for the conservation of the golden eagle. The SPA qualified under Article 4(1)
of the Birds Directive because it regularly supported a breeding population of
European importance of the golden eagle, an Annex 1 species under that
Directive. The site supported eight pairs
of golden eagles. They comprised one of
the highest density populations in Great Britain.
[7] On
4 May 2006 the respondents
approved a document called "Highland Renewable Energy Strategy and Planning
Guidelines" ("HRES") as non-statutory supplementary planning guidance which was
to be a material consideration in determining applications for planning
permission for relevant developments. In
HRES the respondents sought among other things to identify areas as preferred
locations for national and major onshore wind energy developments and as
possible areas in which such developments could be located. HRES provided that
in all other areas there was to be a presumption against such development. The identification of the areas was the
product of the respondents' Renewable Energy Resource Assessment model, which I
discuss in more detail in paragraph 110 below.
Under Policy E 7 of HRES the Edinbane site is in an area where there is
a presumption against development.
Policy E 7 states:
"Elsewhere in Highland
there will be a presumption against export wind development. Any proposals for national and major projects
will have to overcome a precautionary approach to planning approval. Any development would also need to show that there
is no scope for alternative development within other preferred or possible
development areas."
[8] The
Edinbane site is in close proximity to and may overlap with a grid square
identified as a possible area but the majority of the site is covered by the
policy E 7 presumption.
(b)
The application for the wind farm development
[9] AMEC
Project Investments Limited ("AMEC") on 17
August 2001 sent the respondents a scoping report for an
environmental statement in relation to the proposed wind farm of up to thirty
turbines and asked them for their comments on the report. AMEC sent the scoping report to other bodies
including Scottish Natural Heritage ("SNH"), Scottish Environment Protection
Agency ("SEPA") and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds ("RSPB"). On 24
September 2001 SNH wrote to AMEC advising them that further information
should be included in the proposed environmental statement. SNH suggested that the number of turbines
which the site could accommodate should be assessed in an iterative process in
tandem with the assessment of environmental impacts. The information which SNH requested included
details of site selection, cumulative impact and alternative sites
considered. They also requested
information on the areas used for hunting by golden eagles and other birds of
prey and details of the proposed roads and borrow pits. On 11
October 2001 the respondents wrote to AMEC expressing broad
agreement with SNH's position on the content of the proposed environmental
statement. The respondents agreed that
the assessment of the capacity of the site should be an iterative process and strongly endorsed SNH's suggestion
that the environmental statement should examine among other things access
routes and excavation. The respondents
also called for an assessment of the cumulative impact of the proposed wind
farm and another proposed development nearby at Ben Aketil.
[10] AMEC changed their development proposal over time in response
to environmental concerns. The initial planning
application which was lodged on 20
February 2002 was for 28 turbines, a substation compound, site
roads and borrow pits. AMEC produced an initial environmental statement dated
February 2002. This statement among
other things listed several options for obtaining material for the construction
of site roads, including on-site borrow pits, but did not commit AMEC to a
particular source of material. The
initial environmental statement also included the results of ornithological
surveys of various bird species and a confidential annex relating to raptors
which (in order to protect the birds) was intended for use only by SNH and the
RSPB.
[11] The application met with a number of objections including one
from the individuals who later incorporated the petitioners. SEPA did not object provided certain issues,
including the sourcing of stone for site roads, were addressed and made the
subject of planning conditions before the application was determined. However in November 2002 SEPA raised further
concerns about a potential increase in flood risk resulting from the proposed
development. They requested pre- and
post- development runoff calculations and, if those calculations showed that it
was required, the installation of a surface water drainage system to make the
post-development runoff no greater than the pre-development runoff. SNH, while not opposing the principle of wind
farm development in the area, objected to the proposal as then submitted and
suggested how their objections could be overcome. SNH called for the removal of one of the
turbines to reduce visual impact and for more data and assessment in the
environmental statement on and of among other things site roads, borrow pits
and the monitoring of birds. Local
ornithologists, Ken Crane and Kate Nellist ("Crane and Nellist"), also
submitted comments in which they expressed concern for raptors. They requested further monitoring and the
phased development of the site by postponing the construction of certain
turbines to allow golden eagles to adapt to the turbines. The RSPB also lodged a holding objection,
calling for the provision of more information about various bird species
including raptors.
[12] The initial environmental statement was superseded by an
amended environmental statement dated June 2002. In this statement AMEC proposed to install
twenty-seven turbines on the site. AMEC
also stated that the sourcing of stone for the site roads would be the subject
of a separate planning application.
After a site visit, on 29
November 2002 the respondents' Planning, Development, Europe
and Tourism Committee ("the planning committee") resolved to grant permission
to the wind farm development of twenty-seven turbines, subject to planning
conditions and the prior conclusion of a section 75 agreement. Among the proposed conditions was a condition
which required the developer before commencing the development to submit, and
obtain the approval of the planning authority of, detailed proposals for
sourcing aggregate.
[13] On 23 December 2002
AMEC lodged two planning applications for permission to operate two temporary
borrow pits within existing commercial forestry in the vicinity of the proposed
wind farm site to provide the necessary aggregate for the site roads. With the applications AMEC also lodged a
supporting statement which explained their choice of location of the borrow
pits and their proposed methods of operation.
Before lodging the applications AMEC had applied to the respondents on 4 December 2002 for a screening
opinion whether the borrow pits proposal was likely to have significant
environmental effects and therefore whether an environmental impact assessment
would be required. On 7 January 2003 the respondents issued
a screening opinion stating that they had decided that the proposal was
unlikely to have significant
environmental effects and that an environmental impact assessment would not be
required.
[14] The petitioners and others objected to the borrow pits proposal
arguing among other things that the sourcing of the road stone was an essential
part of the wind farm project and that it was unlawful to consider its environmental
impacts separately from the impacts of the proposed wind farm. SEPA did not object in principle but
requested amended drainage details. SNH
did not object and expressed the view that the borrow pits were unlikely to
threaten natural heritage interests. On
14 April 2003 the respondents' Skye and Lochalsh Area Planning Committee agreed to approve the grant of temporary
planning permission for the borrow pits subject to conditions and the prior conclusion of a
section 75 agreement. The permissions
were also to be subject to the prior issue of a permission for the Edinbane
wind farm. The committee also decided
that the permissions should be subject to additional conditions covering the
views of the respondents' environmental health department and SNH. The former consultee had yet to respond to an
amended submission and the latter had requested a satisfactory restoration
plan.
[15] Several events caused AMEC to carry out further work in
relation to their proposed development.
In October 2003 a major peat slide occurred at a wind farm site at
Derrybrien in the Republic of Ireland
which gave rise to concerns that the construction of a wind farm at Edinbane,
which comprised predominantly blanket mire, might create the risk of a similar
occurrence. In response the respondents
entered into discussions with AMEC and the Health and Safety Executive and the
latter carried out a review of information on peat instability. Information which was supplied by the
applicants for permission to develop an adjoining wind farm at Ben Aketil gave
rise to further concerns about the cumulative impact of the developments on the
Cuillins SPA. In June 2004 the
petitioners complained to the European Commission that the proposed grant of
planning permission to the Edinbane wind farm would breach European law,
because among other things there had been no assessment of its impact on the Cuillins SPA.
[16] On 12 July 2004
SNH wrote to the respondents expressing concern about the cumulative impact of
the Edinbane and Ben Atketil proposals on the golden eagle and their potential
effects on the integrity of the Cuillins SPA. SNH requested that there be a study of the
effect of individual turbines within the proposed layout at Edinbane on
sub-adult eagle mortality with a view to removing or repositioning turbines
which most interfered with the monitored flight-lines of the golden eagle with
the aim thereby substantially to reduce the levels of predicted sub-adult
mortality. SNH also requested that AMEC
devise monitoring and mitigation measures further to reduce that
mortality. In response AMEC commissioned
and sent to the respondents a further report by E.S. Lawrence of Lawrence
Ecological Consultants ("LEC") assessing
the flight activity of golden eagles and the effect of the proposed wind
farm. SNH commented in detail on the LEC
assessment and carried out their own assessment of the collision risk and the
likely effect of mortality on the golden eagle population in Skye. They modelled estimates of collision
fatalities which showed a range of between 0.27 and 0.6 golden eagle deaths per
year. SNH concluded that it was unlikely
that the wind farm would cause the population of golden eagles in Skye to
decline but proposed that the number of turbines be reduced. At the respondents' request, AMEC instructed
the collection of further data during 2005 to assess whether the risk of
collision mortality at the Edinbane site would be below SNH's threshold of 0.6
golden eagles per year.
[17] The respondents also instructed Professor Rowan Robinson to
provide them with a legal opinion on their duties in the light of the concerns
expressed about the possible effects of the development on the golden eagle
population and the lack of assessment of the effect of construction of the
development on flooding and ground stability and the further information which
they had received on those topics. In an
opinion dated April 2005 Professor Rowan Robinson advised among other things
that, notwithstanding their decision of 29 November 2002, there was as yet no planning
permission. The Respondents should
therefore consider all relevant information, including updated information on
bird strikes, the integrity of the SPA, flooding and ground stability, which
was available to them when deciding whether to grant planning permission for
the Edinbane wind farm. He also advised that the Environmental Impact
Assessment (Scotland) Regulations 1999 ("the 1999 Regulations") required the
respondents to obtain, publicise and consider the environmental information needed
to assess the likely significant impacts of a development before deciding
whether to grant planning permission.
[18] At a meeting on 25 May 2005 the respondents' planning committee
discussed a report from the director of planning and development explaining the
events which had occurred since 2002, including the Derrybrien peat slide, the
involvement of the European Commission in proceedings against the Irish
government, the concerns expressed by SNH and RSPB and the new information
revealed in the eagle studies. The
director of planning and development recommended that the respondents would
require to decide the Edinbane application on its merits in the light of the
new information and any further relevant information available at the time of
their decision. The planning committee
noted the position. The respondents
asked AMEC to provide further information on peat slides and further studies on
raptor activity. On 2 September 2005 the planning committee approved
the Ben Aketil planning application subject to conditions and the conclusion of
a section 75 agreement. The Ben Aketil
permission was issued on 7 September
2006.
[19] In April 2006 AMEC submitted an amended proposal for the
Edinbane wind farm reducing the number of turbines from twenty-seven to
nineteen and reducing the size of the turbines.
With the proposal in the core document they also submitted (a) amended
visualisations, (b) a peat slide assessment by Mott MacDonald and (c) further
eagle studies which Natural Research (Projects) Limited had carried out. In the core document and the commentary on
the eagle studies AMEC explained that they had altered the layout and reduced
the number of turbines in their proposal to bring the modelled rate of golden
eagle strikes to within SNH's threshold of 0.6 per year. The core document also contained under the
heading "Environmental Impact Assessment" a brief summary of the environmental
impacts of the amended proposal including summaries of the peat slide assessment
and the raptor studies.
[20] In July 2006 the petitioners lodged with the respondents
further detailed objections to the Edinbane wind farm proposal to supplement
their objections lodged in 2002. In those objections the petitioners commented
on AMEC's April 2006 submission.
[21] In August 2006 AMEC amended their proposal by reducing the
number of turbines to eighteen ("the second amended proposal"). The reductions in the numbers of turbines in
the April 2006 submission and in the August 2006 submission were concentrated
on parts of the proposed site where the greatest number of eagle flights had
been observed and were principally in order to reduce predicted eagle mortality.
The August 2006 submission was a very substantial document. It comprised a core document summarising the
proposal and the supplementary environmental information which was contained in
fourteen appendices. Those appendices
covered (a) supplementary survey work to assess the risk of peat slide, (b) an
assessment of the risk to raptors from the second amended proposal, (c) a
landscape and visual assessment, (d) a noise assessment, (e) an assessment of
the impact of the development on tourism, (e) an assessment of the likely
impact of the development on otters, (f) an assessment of the likely impact of
the development on bats, (g) an assessment of flood risk and a survey of
private water supplies and (h) an assessment of the cumulative impact of the
wind farm and the borrow pits (Appendices H-N).
[22] In September 2006 the petitioners' legal advisers lodged with the
respondents further objections which among other things commented on AMEC's
August 2006 submission.
[23] By letter dated 2
October 2006 SNH maintained their objection to the proposed
Edinbane wind farm as then proposed on the basis that they could not assess
fully the adverse impacts of the development on the Cuillins SPA on the
information provided. SNH stated that
they would review their objection if specified information were provided,
including an assessment of the cumulative impact of the Edinbane and Ben Aketil
wind farms on the Skye golden eagle population using up to date population data
and calculations of collision risk using a specified model of turbine. SNH expressed concern about the quality of
the data assembled by LEC and requested that the revised assessment incorporate
the data assembled from the observations by Crane and Nellist in 2002. SNH also advised that certain conditions
should be imposed in any planning permission and made other recommendations. Mr Mudie, the respondents' development
management team leader, in an e-mail to AMEC dated 4 October 2006 pointed out that the environmental
statement had become a complex multi-document submission and advised AMEC to
adopt a clean slate approach by withdrawing their application and submitting a
new one. Faced with SNH's objection, the
director of planning and development produced a report for a meeting of the
planning committee on 27 October 2006
recommending refusal of the application on the basis that there had not been an
appropriate assessment of the impact of the development on the Cuillins
SPA. On 26 October 2006 Mr Mudie again requested AMEC to
withdraw their planning application. In
the event, the meeting of the planning committee was cancelled because of
severe weather.
[24] In January 2007 AMEC submitted further environmental
information in support of the second amended proposal in response to SNH's
concerns. The document contained a
report by the consultant ornithologist, Dr Paul Haworth, which reviewed the
available data on golden eagles in Skye and carried out an assessment of the
cumulative impact of the Ben Aketil and Edinbane wind farms on the golden eagle
population in Skye and more widely. Dr
Haworth concluded (a) that there was sufficient habitat for the sub-adult eagles
on Skye if displaced from the wind farm sites, (b) that the second amended proposal would involve a risk
of causing less than 0.6 golden eagle deaths per year and in combination with
Ben Aketil up to 0.91 deaths per year and (c) that adverse impacts on the
Cuillins golden eagle SPA were not predicted if the mortality of sub-adult
eagles was below one per year.
[25] Objectors, including the petitioners, responded to AMEC's
further environmental information by lodging supplementary objections. The ornithologists, Crane and Nellist,
renewed their criticisms of the collision risk modelling and challenged the
view that there was any certainty that the golden eagle population of Skye was
currently secure. Mr R. L. MacMillan, an
ornithologist, also repeated his concerns about validity of the data and the
collision risk threshold which SNH had adopted for golden eagles and expressed
concerns about other raptors. He pointed
out that the collision risk from the combined Ben Aketil and Edinbane wind
farms at 0.9 per year would be the highest of any wind farm site in Scotland. The petitioners by letter dated 3 February 2007 lodged a further
objection which criticised the proposal on a number of grounds. They challenged AMEC's peat slide assessment
as inadequate; they argued that the development was contrary to HRES, that AMEC had failed to assess the impact of
the development on tourism in Edinbane, that noise nuisance had not been fully
assessed and that AMEC's January 2007 further environmental information was
inadequate to meet the requirements of European law on nature
conservation. RSPB also wrote to
maintain its objection due to what it said was the level of uncertainty
regarding the potential impact on golden eagles and other raptor species.
[26] SNH by letter dated 16
February 2007 provided their advice to the respondents in the light
of the further environmental information.
They concluded that the additional work on golden eagles had adequately
addressed SNH's earlier concerns with the environmental statement in that
regard. They stated that the additional
information had
"demonstrated
that there is sufficient sub-adult habitat available if displacement
occurs. If the golden eagles continue to
use the site, the expected increase in sub-adult mortality which would arise
from collisions with the turbines is not considered to be sufficient to
compromise the Skye or the Cuillins SPA golden eagle populations. The Environmental Statement and SNH's
appraisal of the ES demonstrate that there will be no adverse effect on the
integrity of the Cuillins SPA."
SNH therefore withdrew their
earlier holding objection, provided that planning conditions were imposed to
control the type of turbine used in the wind farm.
[27] The respondents' director of planning and development in a
report dated 27 February 2007
recommended that planning permission be granted subject to a section 75
agreement and conditions. The
respondents' planning committee considered the application at a meeting on 9 March 2007 and resolved to approve
the application in accordance with his recommendation. The report and the committee's consideration
of it at the 9 March meeting are discussed in more detail below in the
discussion of the particular challenges raised in this judicial review. AMEC, the respondents and the Scottish
Ministers then entered into a section 75 agreement, and the respondents issued
separate planning permissions on 16
May 2007 for the Edinbane wind farm and the two borrow pits. The decisions to grant those permissions are
challenged in this judicial review.
(c)
Other relevant facts
[28] In their various grounds of challenge the petitioners addressed
the court on detailed factual matters which were specific to individual
grounds. Rather than give an aggregated
account of all the relevant facts which would be either too dense or too
extensive, I set out the more detailed facts in my discussion of the individual
challenges and refer back to the factual background above.
Discussion
of grounds of challenge
[29] The petitioners advanced
grounds of challenge under five headings and included several grounds of
challenge under two of those headings. I
consider each of the grounds under those five headings. It is important, before I do so, to recall
the proper scope of the court's jurisdiction in applications for judicial
review as some of the petitioners' submissions assumed that the court could
accept as fact assertions which were contested by the respondents and which
were not established by proof. For this
purpose it is sufficient for me to refer to the opinion of Lord Nimmo Smith in World Wildlife Fund v The Scottish Ministers
[1999] 1 CMLR 1021 in which at paragraph 6 he stated:
"At the outset I
must emphasise that I am not concerned with the merits of any of these decisions. An important point, which was emphasised by
the First Division in....West v Secretary of State for Scotland is that
judicial review is available, not to provide machinery for an appeal, but to
ensure that the decision-maker to whom a jurisdiction, power or authority has
been delegated or entrusted by statute, agreement or any other instrument, does
not exceed or abuse his powers or fail to perform the duty which has been
delegated or entrusted to him. It is not
competent for the Court to review the act or decision on its merits, nor may it
substitute its own opinion for that of the person or body to whom the matter
has been delegated or entrusted."
(i)
The Environmental Impact Assessment
[30] The petitioners advanced
four arguments under this heading. Before
considering each of the arguments, it may be useful in order to set them in
context to summarise the relevant law on environmental impact assessments in
view of the many authorities to which I was referred.
[31] In the course of their submissions counsel referred to the
following cases: Bund Naturschutz in
Bayern v Freistaat Bayern (Case
C-396/92) [1994] ECR I-3717, Aannemersbedrijf
P.K.Kraaijeveld BV v Gedeputeerde
Staten van Zuid-Holland (Case C-72/95) [1996] ECR I-5403, The Queen on the application of Wells v Secretary of State for Transport, Local
Government and the Regions (Case C-201/02) [2004] ECR I-723, R v Swale
Borough Council and Medway Ports Authority [1991] 1 PLR 6, R v Rochdale Metropolitan Council ex p Tew [2000]
Env LR 1, R v North Yorkshire County Council ex p Brown [2000] 1 AC 452, R v
Rochdale Metropolitan Council ex p Milne [2001] Env LR 22 (and the
application for leave to appeal that decision which the Court of Appeal
refused), R v Cornwall County Council ex p Hardy [2001] Env LR 25, British Telecommunications plc v
Gloucester City Council [2001] EWHC Admin 1001, Berkeley v Secretary of State
for the Environment [2001] 2 AC 603,
R (on the application of Barker) v London Borough of Bromley [2002] Env LR
631 (CA), R (on the application of Lebus)
v South Cambridgeshire DC [2003] 2 P
& CR 5, Smith v Secretary of State
for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003] Env LR 32 (CA), Gillespie v First Secretary of State [2003]
Env LR 30, BAA plc v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [2003]
JPL 610, R (on the application of
Burkett) v Hammersmith and Fulham
London Borough Council [2004] Env LR 3, and R (on the application of Jones) v Mansfield Borough Council [2004] Env LR 21. In relation to an argument of substantial
compliance Mrs Wolffe referred in addition to Commission v Germany (Case
C-431/92) [1995] ECR I-2189, R (on the
application of Prokopp) v London
Underground Ltd [2004] Env LR 8, and Belize
Alliance of Conservation Non-Governmental Organisations v The Department of the Environment [2004] Env LR 38 (PC).
[32] Mr Campbell referred to articles 174 and 175 of the European
Community Treaty, Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EEC on environmental
assessments and 2003/35/EC on public participation. He accepted however that the European
directives had been correctly transposed into domestic law by the Environmental
Impact Assessment (Scotland)
Regulations 1999 ("the 1999 Regulations").
It is necessary therefore to have regard to the European legislation
only to assist the interpretation of the 1999 Regulations. In that context it may be helpful to quote
the sixth recital of Council Directive 85/337/EEC which states:
"Whereas
development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have
significant effects on the environment should be granted only after prior
assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of these projects
have been carried out; whereas this assessment must be conducted on the basis
of the appropriate information supplied by the developer, which may be
supplemented by the authorities and by the people who may be concerned by the
project in question".
[33] The environmental impact assessment ("EIA") is a procedure
which was introduced to implement Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the
assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment. That Directive was
subsequently amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC to improve the assessment
procedure and by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council to give effect to the obligations undertaken in the Århus Convention in
relation to public participation in decision-making on environmental matters.
[34] In terms of article 4 and Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC (as
amended) wind farms are one of the categories of projects which may or may not
require an EIA, depending upon whether the Member State considers that they are
likely to have significant effects on the environment. This is reflected in the 1999 Regulations
which define "EIA development" as being either a Schedule 1 development or a
Schedule 2 development. Schedule 1
describes developments which must undergo an EIA. Schedule 2 describes developments which are
to undergo an EIA if they are likely to have significant effects on the
environment by virtue of factors such as their nature, size or location. Wind farms fall within Schedule 2.
[35] Where a development is, or is connected with, a Schedule 2
development, the developer under Regulation 5 can request the planning
authority for a screening opinion which is a written statement of opinion as to
whether a development is EIA development.
This involves the planning authority in an assessment of whether the
development is likely to have significant effects on the environment having
regard to the criteria set out in Schedule 3.
Case law in England
and Wales has
provided further guidance. The
Regulation contemplates a relatively speedy decision on the basis of relatively
limited information (Jones, para
49). In making that assessment the
planning authority can take account of the use of well-established and tested
remedial measures which can be required by planning condition (Gillespie, paras 36-38, 46 and 49, PPG 11 Ltd, para 52). But where it is clear that a development is
likely to have significant effects on the environment, those effects and the
efficacy of remedial measures should normally be the subject of an EIA because
the 1999 Regulations require that other parties, including the public, have the
opportunity to contribute to the environmental information which the planning
authority should consider in reaching its decision (see citations from Gillespie and PPG 11 Ltd above and also Burkett
at para 8).
[36] Where a development falling within Schedule 2 is assessed as
being likely to have significant environmental effects and is thus EIA
development, Regulation 3(2) prohibits the planning authority from granting
planning permission unless they have first taken into consideration "the environmental
information". It is in the Regulation
3(2) prohibition and in the definition of "environmental information" in
Regulation 2(1) that the 1999 Regulations create the mechanism by which the
planning authority has to consider the information which the Directives have
laid down as necessary for the assessment of environmental impact before the
authority grants planning permission for the development.
[37] In the United Kingdom planning systems where a developer seeks
outline planning permission for a development which is likely to have
significant environmental effects, the planning authority must have sufficient
information on the development, its impact and the mitigation measures to
consider the significant environmental effects of the development at the stage
of determination of the outline application which establishes the principle of
the development. See Alexander Russell Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland 1984
SLT 81 and Smith (paragraphs 25-28). Consideration of significant environmental effects
and mitigation measures at reserved matters stage would avoid the statutory
requirements for consultation and publicity which provide what Lord Hoffmann in
Berkeley
described as the inclusive and democratic procedure required by the Directive.
As a result the 1999 Regulations may make it difficult for a developer to
obtain outline planning permission in some cases without committing himself to
detailed design, as the planning authority cannot defer its decision on any
matter that is likely to have a significant environmental effect. See, for
example, Tew and Milne, and Smith (at
paras 25-27).
[38] The environmental information as defined in Regulation 3(2)
means (a) the environmental statement which the developer prepares and submits
to the planning authority, (b) any further information which the planning
authority in writing requires the developer to provide under Regulation 19 and
any other information which becomes part of the environmental statement, (c)
any representations made by the specified consultation bodies, such as SNH and
SEPA, which have environmental responsibilities, and (d) any representations
duly made by any other person about the environmental effects of the
development. The inclusion of the latter
representations within the definition of environmental information is designed
to enable the public to contribute to the environmental assessment in
accordance with the Århus Convention.
Public contribution to the assessment is facilitiated by the placing on
the register of, among other things, copies of the environmental statement, the
further information required under Regulation 19 and any other information
which comes to form part of the environmental statement (Regulation 20), and
the requirement that the authority make such documentation available for
inspection and publicise that availability (Regulations 38 and 37). The petitioners took no issue in this case
with the availability of the information for inspection in accordance with the
Regulations, although as mentioned in paragraph 70 below, they challenged the
manner in which environmental information in relation to the borrow pits came
into the public domain.
[39] The developer can ask the planning authority to give a written
scoping opinion which specifies the information to be provided in the
environmental statement (Regulation 10).
The authority provides the scoping opinion after consulting the
specified consultation bodies. Screening
opinions and scoping opinions also are available for inspection on the
register.
[40] Schedule 4 to the 1999 Regulations sets out the information to
be included in the environmental statement.
That statement must include at least the matters listed in Part 2
of Schedule 4. Part 2 requires the
following:
"1. A
description of the development comprising information on the site, design and
size of the development.
2. A description
of the measures envisaged in order to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy
significant adverse effects.
3. The data
required to identify and assess the main effects which the development is
likely to have on the environment.
4. An outline of
the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication
of the main reasons for his choice, taking account of the environmental
effects.
5. A non-technical
summary of the information provided under paragraphs 1 to 4 of this Part."
Part 1 of the
Schedule lists among other things more detailed descriptions of the
development, of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly
affected by the development, of the significant effects of the development on
the environment including cumulative effects and of mitigation measures. There is also included in the list a
requirement for an outline of the main alternatives which is identical in its wording
to paragraph 4 of Part 2 set out above. There is a similar requirement for a
non-technical summary as in Part 2. The
need to provide the information listed in Part 1 of the Schedule is not
absolute. Regulation 2(1) in its
definition of "environmental statement" provides that the statement includes
such of the information referred to in Part 1 of the Schedule as (a) is
reasonably required to assess the environmental effects of the development and
(b) the applicant can reasonably be required to compile, having regard in
particular to current knowledge and methods of assessment.
[41] Once the planning authority has received the developer's
environmental statement, including any further information which it requires
under Regulation 19 or which the developer submits, it is a matter for the
judgement of the planning authority whether the information provided gives it
sufficient knowledge of the likely significant effects of the development on
the environment. The 1999 Regulations do
not require the planning authority to have available to it information on every
detailed environmental effect.
Environmental effects which are not significant can be dealt with later
as reserved matters or assessed in compliance with a planning condition (Smith at para 28). What is required from the planning authority
is that it makes its planning decision only after a proper assessment of what
the significant environmental effects of the development are likely to be. See the sixth recital of the Directive
(paragraph 32 above). The judgement
whether the environmental information is sufficient for that assessment will be
one of fact and degree in each case.
That judgement by the planning authority is subject to review by the
courts on the normal grounds of judicial review (Jones at paras 17 and 60, and Burkett
at para 8). In several cases English
judges refer to review by the courts on normal Wednesbury principles. I
interpret that as a reference to all the grounds of judicial review of a
discretionary decision and not just to irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness.
See the judgment of Lord Greene in Wednesbury
at pp.228-229 in which he listed the various grounds of judicial review and
also R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex p Nottinghamshire County
Council [1986] AC 240, in which Lord Scarman at p.249 explained that
"normal Wednesbury principles" was "shorthand" for Lord Greene's
classical review of the circumstances in which the court will intervene to
quash as illegal an exercise of administrative discretion.
[42] The case law mentioned above gives useful guidance in relation
to the quality of the information on environmental effects which the planning
authority must have both in making a screening opinion and before it determines
a planning application for development which is EIA development. It emphasises the procedures which must be
complied with to ensure public participation in and contribution to the
assembling of the relevant environmental information. It confirms the limits of the court's jurisdiction
to review decisions of the planning authority. These points are relevant
to consideration of the petitioners' arguments in relation to the environmental
impact assessment which were as follows.
The
form of the Environmental Statement
[43] First, the petitioners submitted that the respondents acted
illegally in accepting from AMEC environmental information on a piecemeal
basis. Mr Campbell submitted that the respondents
were under a legal obligation not to determine the planning applications until
they had received a comprehensive and comprehensible body of work which
accurately described the environmental effects of the development in a manner
which was reasonably digestible by members of the public. Further he submitted initially that this information
should be available at the start of the process of assessment of the
environmental information. He founded on
Berkeley
in which Lord Hoffmann stated at p.617:
"The point about
the environmental statement contemplated by the Directive is that it constitutes
a single and accessible compilation, produced by the applicant at the very
start of the application process, of the relevant environmental information and
the summary in non-technical language.
It is true that article 6.3 gives Member States a discretion as to the
places where the information can be consulted, the way in which the public may
be informed and the manner in which the public is to be consulted. But I do not think it allows Member States to
treat a disparate collection of documents produced by parties other than the
developer and traceable only by a person with a good deal of energy and
persistence as satisfying the requirement to make available to the public the
Annex III information which should have been provided by the developer".
[44] Mr Campbell submitted that the respondents had acted illegally
in allowing AMEC to submit a multiplicity of documents over time and by not
insisting on a non-technical summary of the content of the aggregate of all of
the documents. During discussion he
amended his formulation of the submission and argued that the 1999 Regulations
required an environmental statement to comprise a single and accessible
compilation of documents produced by the applicant in the course of the
application process.
[45] It is important to identify what are the documents which
comprised the environmental statement. In summary, as a result of the environmental
concerns which were raised and the changes which AMEC made to their proposal to
address those issues, the initial environmental statement was superseded by the
amended environmental statement of June 2002 and that in turn was supplemented
by further documents. The respondents' position
was that the environmental statement, which was available to the respondents
and the public when the decision to grant the impugned planning permissions was
made in March 2007, comprised (a) the amended statement of June 2002 (referred
to in paragraph 12 above), (b) the further information dated April 2006 (referred
to in paragraph 19 above), (c) the second amended proposal in August 2006
(referred to in paragraph 21 above) and (d) the further information of January
2007 (referred to in paragraph 24 above).
I proceed on that basis which was not contested.
[46] The petitioners founded on the advice of the Scottish Executive
in PAN 58, which (at paragraphs 72-79) included their advice on the
presentation of the environmental statement.
In paragraph 73 the advice was:
"The main report
should give an account of all the environmental assessment work from project
inception through to mitigation measures and monitoring arrangements. It should read as a single document and not
merely be a compendium of separate reports on each environmental topic or impact. To help the reader, lengthy or detailed
supporting studies should be confined to appendices, and accurately summarised
in the main report and non-technical summary.
The main body of the statement can thus be kept to manageable
proportions."
[47] Paragraph 74 spoke of a "concise, comprehensive and objective
report". There is no doubt that the
environmental statement did not achieve that conciseness. Paragraph 78 discussed the non-technical
summary, stating that its purpose was to ensure that the key points of the
environmental statement could be more readily understood by non-experts and
decision-makers.
[48] Mr Campbell also referred to correspondence between the
respondents and AMEC in early October 2006 in which the respondents'
development control team leader, Mr Mudie, recommended that AMEC should
withdraw the application and lodge a fresh application because the
environmental statement had become a complex multi-document submission which
was then to be complicated by a further ornithological study to be undertaken. In so advising Mr Mudie reflected the view of
SNH which in their letter of 2 October
2006 to the respondents had advised that the environmental
statement had lost its cohesion and lacked transparency in a number of places,
particularly the ornithological aspects.
However, on receipt of the further information of January 2007, SNH
changed their view and in their letter dated 16 February 2007 stated:
"We noted in our
October 2006 letter that the Environmental Statement had lost its cohesion and
lacked transparency, particularly in relation to the ornithological
aspects. SNH are content that the recent
golden eagle appraisal is transparent and we therefore feel able to reach a
conclusion on this critical aspect of the case.
The issue of cohesion and accessibility has not been addressed and while
the approach taken by the developer is clearly not best practice and is likely
to present difficulties to those not familiar with this case, there is
sufficient information to inform SNH's response."
[49] While it is clear that the prolonged way in which the project
changed and the environmental assessment expanded over time fell far short of
the ideal, I am satisfied that the petitioner's challenge on this ground
fails. It is important to see Lord
Hoffmann's comments in Berkeley in their context. The "paper chase" which he described in that
case would have required an interested member of the public to look at the
applicant's statement of case for a public inquiry, and to cross-refer that to
the planning officer's report to the planning sub-committee, and its background
papers including letters from interested environmental bodies, and also the
proofs of evidence made available at the inquiry in order to discover the
necessary environmental assessment. In
this case by contrast the four documents emanated from AMEC and were each made
available to the public in accordance with the 1999 Regulations.
[50] In my opinion there is no legal requirement that all the environmental
information which an applicant submits
and which, by virtue of the definition of environmental statement in regulation
2(1), forms part of that statement
should be in one document. Berkeley does not support the contrary view. The original environmental statement must
emanate from the applicant and must attempt a sufficiently comprehensive
assessment of the environmental effects of the development to allow the
planning authority to make a judgement on the significant environmental effects
of the development. But the Regulations
envisage that the planning authority may require further information under
Regulation 19 and that the applicant may submit further information, both of
which become part of the environmental statement. The assessment may therefore develop over
time in what Newman J described in Burkett
as a "dynamic process".
[51] In this case the four documents to which I referred in
paragraph 45 above each contained non-technical summaries or their
equivalents. The amended statement of
June 2002 (paragraph 12 above) included a seven-page executive summary which
described the development and construction programme and listed the
environmental effects, including terrestrial ecology, ornithology, landscape
and visual assessment, archaeology, air traffic and radio communications,
people and safety, noise, and tourism.
The further information of April 2006 (paragraph 19 above), which
concentrated on further ornithological studies and a peat slide risk assessment
as well as considering the landscape and visual effects of the amended proposal
for the reduced number of turbines, contained a four-page core document which
summarised the contents of the three appendices. The appendices on the peat slide risk and the
eagle studies also contained executive summaries. The additional supplementary environmental
information which AMEC submitted with their second amended proposal (paragraph
21 above) amounted to several hundreds of pages. But again it contained a twenty-nine page
document which on nineteen pages summarised the findings of the assessments and
surveys contained in the fourteen appendices.
Some of the assessments in the appendices were complex and lengthy but
by use of the indices or otherwise it was relatively easy to find the
conclusions which the assessors reached.
Finally, the further environmental information which AMEC submitted in
January 2007 (paragraph 24 above) contained a two-page summary of the results
of Dr Haworth's eagle study which itself contained a one-page executive
summary.
[52] In my opinion the material which AMEC produced would have been
easier to assimilate if it had been aggregated, edited and re-presented in one
document. Nonetheless the documents
comprising the environmental statement were available for inspection by the
public. They were presented in a way
which allowed an interested member of the public not only to ascertain without
much difficulty the conclusions which AMEC and its professional advisers had
reached on the various environmental effects but also to study in more detail
the methods used to reach those conclusions.
While the documents which comprised AMEC's environmental statement fell
far short of the ideal statement, I am satisfied that the respondents did not
act illegally in accepting them as an environmental statement in this case.
[53] As I have reached the view that the environmental statement did
not need to be contained within one document and that AMEC complied with the
requirements of the 1999 Regulations in relation to its environmental
statement, I do not need to consider Mrs Wolffe's alternative submission that
there was in any event substantial compliance with the aims of the Regulations
and the Directives. It is sufficient to
record that in support of that submission she referred me to Commission v Germany,
Berkeley,
Prokopp and Belize Alliance and that, had it been necessary to decide the
question, I would have concluded that there was substantial compliance.
The
failure to consider alternatives
[54] Secondly, the petitioners submitted that the respondents had
acted illegally in failing to take into account "alternative" sites for the
wind farm which AMEC proposed at Edinbane.
As mentioned in paragraph 40 above, Regulation 2(1) of the 1999
Regulations requires that an environmental statement contain at least the
information listed in Part 2 of Schedule
4. Paragraph 4 of Part 2 refers to "an outline of the main
alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the
main reasons for his choice, taking account of the environmental effects". Mr Campbell submitted that AMEC had failed to
include that essential information. He
also submitted (a) that having regard to the proximity of the Cuillins SPA the
respondents should have required AMEC to examine alternative sites in their
environmental statement under Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the 1999 Regulations and
(b) that whether there was an alterative site was a relevant planning consideration
which the respondents failed to consider.
[55] The respondents' submission was that 1999 Regulations required
a developer who had in fact considered alternative projects to provide details of
those alternatives in the environmental statement, but they did not require him
to study alternatives. In this case AMEC
had not looked at alternative sites and had explained their position in the
additional supplementary information which they submitted with their second
amended proposal in August 2006 (paragraph 21 above). On page 26 of that document AMEC explained
that there were no alternative developments open to them in the Highlands
which they could take forward timeously to secure grid connection before 2016
because of constraints in the electricity transmission system. AMEC had negotiated a grid connection
contract with a connection date of 2008 and could not gain support from
landowners and crofters to develop another site and take an application through
the EIA and planning process in time to meet that date.
[56] I am satisfied from the wording of paragraph 4 of Part 2 of
Schedule 4 that what is required in any environmental statement is an outline
of any alternatives which an applicant has in fact studied and the reasons for
his choice where he has in fact made a choice.
That is the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used. The same words are used in the Directive ("qui
ont été examinées"). Accordingly AMEC
have not breached the requirements of Part 2 of Schedule 4 to the 1999
Regulations.
[57] The same words are used in Part 1 of Schedule 4 and an issue
arises as to whether they are to be given the same meaning in that
context. In recital 11 of Directive
97/11/EC it is stated:
"Whereas it is
appropriate to introduce a procedure in order to enable the developer to obtain
an opinion from the competent authorities on the content and extent of the
information to be elaborated and supplied for the assessment; whereas Member
States, in the framework of this procedure, may require the developer to
provide, inter alia, alternatives for the projects for which it intends to
submit an application".
[58] Thereafter the Directive provides a re-worded Article 5(1) and
a new Annex IV of Directive 85/337/EEC which requires a Member State to adopt
necessary measures to ensure that the developer supplies the Annex IV
information when the Member State considers the information to be relevant and
that the developer could reasonably be required to supply the information. Annex IV in paragraph 2 contains a provision
in substantially the same terms as paragraph 4 of Part 2 of Schedule 4 to the
1999 Regulations quoted above. The
amended Article 5(3) contains an identical provision as the minimum information
which a developer should provide in his environmental impact assessment.
[59] A requirement that a developer disclose alternatives which he
has considered does not in itself meet the policy aim in recital 11 that a
competent authority should be empowered to require a developer to provide
alternatives. Nor does it make sense to
include in the Directive and in the 1999 Regulations a requirement for the same
information to be provided both as part of the minimum information to be
included in an environmental statement (Article 5(3) of the Directive and
paragraph 4 of Part 2 of Schedule 4 to the 1999 Regulations) and also as an
optional item so far as it is relevant and may reasonably be required (Article
5(1) and Annex IV of the Directive and paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 4 to
the 1999 Regulations). It appears to me
that the words where the provision is optional are designed to deal with a
different context from that of the same words where the provision is compulsory:
I consider that the 1999 Regulations in Regulations 10 and 11 (scoping
opinions) and Regulation 19 (the power to require a developer to provide
further information) empower a planning authority to require a developer to
look at alternative projects or alternative sites in an appropriate case. In many cases which the 1999 Regulations
cover it may not be appropriate or sensible to impose on a developer an
obligation to study alternatives, particularly if a developer does not have a
realistic opportunity to develop another site.
But where a planning authority requires a developer to look at
alternatives, paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 4 enables it to request that
the results of that study are included in the environmental statement.
[60] If that is correct, it is necessary to consider the merits of
the petitioners' challenge to the respondents' scoping decision in relation to
the environmental statement and their decision to be satisfied by the
environmental statement which emerged by early 2007.
[61] As narrated in paragraph 9 above, AMEC asked SNH to comment on
their scoping report of 17 August 2001
and SNH by letter dated 24 September 2001pointed out that one of the matters
which AMEC had missed out of the proposed issues for consideration in the
environmental statement was alternative sites.
By letter dated 11 October 2001 Mr Turner, the respondents' area
development control manager, stated that he was broadly in agreement with SNH's
comments and that he strongly endorsed the comments that the environmental
statement should examine access routes, excavation, power lines and any
buildings. In the event, while the
amended environmental statement of June 2002 (paragraph 12 above) discussed the
process of site selection, AMEC's only comment on alternative sites was what
they said in the August 2006 document and which is summarised in paragraph [55]
above.
[62] Was that sufficient? It
is clear from the English cases to which I have referred in paragraph 41 above that
in the first instance it is for the planning authority to decide whether an
environmental statement is sufficient and that that planning judgement is
subject to challenge in the courts only on the normal grounds for judicial
review. In my opinion the respondents
could be criticised for not requiring AMEC to look at alternative sites and
submit an outline of such alternatives in two circumstances. The first would be if the respondents had
concluded that the Edinbane wind farm would adversely affect the integrity of
the Cuillins SPA and an issue of alternative solutions had arisen under
Regulation 49 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc) Regulations
1994. I am not persuaded that the
presence of Annex 1 birds on the Edinbane site was sufficient of itself to make
alternative sites a material consideration.
The second circumstance would be if they had reached the view that it
was appropriate to apply the strategic policy in HRES, discussed in paragraph 7
above. In either event, it could have
been argued that the respondents had failed to take account of alternatives as
a material consideration in making their planning judgement. But they did not reach that conclusion about
the effect of the development on the SPA nor did they take that view about
HRES. I am not persuaded that in the
circumstances which eventuated the respondents were under any legal duty to
require the study of alternative sites or that in failing to examine such sites
they failed to take account of a relevant consideration. Mr Campbell also presented this challenge on
the basis of irrationality. For the same
reasons I am satisfied that the respondents did not act unreasonably in not
instructing AMEC to consider alternatives.
Accordingly this ground of challenge fails.
[63] In his submission in response to Mrs Wolffe on the ninth day of
the hearing, Mr Campbell expanded his argument by suggesting that in fact AMEC
had identified an alternative site for development on land at Beinn Roishader
belonging to a Major MacDonald and accordingly had failed to comply with the
1999 Regulations. He referred me to a
memorandum dated 11 October 2001 from the respondents' area planning control
manager to their area roads manager which revealed that AMEC had an interest in
that potential site. Mrs Wolffe
submitted that AMEC had initially presented Beinn Roishader as a site to be
developed in addition to Edinbane in pre-application discussions over the
Edinbane site but that in the event AMEC did not proceed with the former
site. Accordingly it had never been
treated as an alternative site. I see no
reason to doubt Mrs Wolffe's presentation of the facts. It is supported by SNH's letter of 11 October 2001 which suggests that
the cumulative effect of the two sites should be considered. I am satisfied that the respondents were entitled
to accept AMEC's environmental statement although it did not discuss
alternative sites.
The
failure to assess flooding risk before granting planning permission
[64] Thirdly, the petitioners asserted that the respondents had acted
illegally and irrationally in granting the planning permissions without having first
received sufficient information in the environmental statement about the risk
of flooding beyond the development site.
In their petition the petitioners averred that flooding was a likely significant
effect because of the nature, size and location of the development on the
Edinbane site which was on the blanket peat watershed of two rivers and in a
high rainfall area. One of the rivers
ran through the settlements of Blackhill and Edinbane. Mr Campbell submitted that the environmental
statement was defective because it did not address that significant
environmental effect. Furthermore, the respondents
had acted illegally and irrationally in seeking to deal with the assessment and
mitigation of flood risk by a planning condition, instead of requiring the
relevant information to be included in the environmental statement. By failing to obtain the relevant data the respondents
deprived themselves of the ability to assess the risk of flooding beyond the
development site before they determined the applications. In the course of argument I was referred to
the following cases: Hardy, British Telecommunications plc, Lebus
and Wells (paragraph 31 above). I was
also referred to advice on the importance of assessing flood risk in the
government guidance, NPPG 7 and SPP 7.
[65] AMEC in their initial environmental statement of February 2002
presented the development as having a minor and not significant impact on pre-development
hydrological conditions of the
surrounding catchments. SEPA in their
letter of 9 May 2002 did not object to the application but recommended that
there should be a planning condition postponing commencement of the development
until the respondents in consultation with among others SEPA had approved a
construction method statement. After Mr
Hodgson, a member of the petitioners, and Dr Jeremy Carter had made
representations to them about the risk of flooding outside the development
site, SEPA wrote to the respondents on 13
November 2002. SEPA requested
pre- and post-development runoff calculations and, if those calculations
demonstrated a significant increase in runoff, a re-design of the surface water
drainage system so that, so far as practicable, the post-development runoff would
be no greater than the pre-development runoff.
[66] In their second amended proposal in August 2006 AMEC provided a
flood risk assessment by SLR Consulting Limited which comprised Appendix G to
the submission. The assessment discussed
appropriate site design and mitigation measures such as cut off drains,
sustainable drainage systems and the use of granular material on the
construction of site roads. It identified the only potential risk of flood as
overland flow. It assessed the risk of
flooding as medium without mitigation measures and low if mitigation measures
were introduced. It concluded that, with
such suitable design and mitigation measures, the potential impact of the
development would be limited and localised. In a consultation response dated 4 October 2006 SEPA confirmed that it
did not object to the development and re-iterated its request for pre- and
post-development runoff calculations and a design of the surface water drainage
system to avoid any material increase of the flood risk elsewhere.
[67] Finally, on 8 March
2007 SEPA wrote to the respondents stating that they were willing to
accept planning conditions requiring the prior approval of a construction
method statement including surface water drainage arrangements which were to comply
with "Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems" ("SUDS") principles and the provision
of pre- and post-development runoff calculations.
SEPA wrote to the petitioners' solicitors on the same day, informing them of
the stance which they had taken. In that
letter, when commenting on an assertion by the petitioners that there had been
a failure to consider significant environmental effects of the project, Ms
Haslam stated:
"SEPA has not
suggested that conditions be imposed in the planning permission to require the
provision of information which is fundamental to assessing the environmental
impacts of the proposed development. It
has however suggested conditions which, in its opinion, should be attached to
the planning permission (if granted).
Those conditions relate to the detailed specification of the mitigation
measures which have already been specified in the ES as being envisaged to
avoid, reduce and possibly remedy significant adverse effects."
[68] In relation to off-site flood risk she stated: "This can be
addressed by a planning condition requiring that a scheme be submitted to
ensure the post-development runoff is equivalent to the pre-development runoff
...".
[69] In the correspondence summarised above SEPA did not treat
off-site flood risk as a significant environmental effect. The mitigation measures referred to in SLR
Consulting Limited's flood risk assessment do not appear to be sophisticated or
unusual. Contrary to SEPA's assertion in
the last-mentioned letter, that assessment did address, albeit briefly,
off-site flood risk as it considered the possible increase of peak flows in
local water courses. The respondents treated
the risk of off-site flooding as a matter which could be dealt with by planning
condition as recommended by SEPA. Having
regard to the nature of the development comprising eighteen turbines on
concrete foundations and site roads linking those turbines which were to be
spread over a large area it is not obviously apparent that any increase in
runoff would be likely to be material and that offsite flooding would be likely
to be a significant environmental effect.
There was no evidence before me, other than the petitioners' assertions
in correspondence, to support their averments that such flooding was likely to
be a significant environmental effect.
Accordingly the English cases referred to in paragraph 64 above may be
distinguished from the circumstances of this case. Mitigation of non-significant effects can be
addressed in the fulfilment of planning conditions. See the cases referred to in paragraph 35
above. There is no basis within the grounds of
judicial review for challenging the respondents' decision on this matter.
The
exclusion of the borrow pits from the Environmental Statement
[70] Fourthly, the petitioners contended that the respondents had acted
illegally and irrationally in granting permission for the borrow pits in the
absence of an environmental statement which addressed their environmental
impact. The borrow pits were an integral
part of the wind farm development and the environmental statement should have
assessed the cumulative environmental effects of the wind farm and the borrow
pits. There had been no non-technical
summary relating to the borrow pits and the procedures for publicity and public
consultation in the 1999 Regulations had not been followed. The splitting of an EIA development into
multiple applications with the effect that some parts were below the threshold
for an EIA defeated the object of the 1999 Regulations. In this regard Mr Campbell referred to Swale Borough Council and BAA plc.
[71] It will be recalled that in 2001 SNH advised that the
excavation of material should be discussed in an environmental assessment and
the respondents strongly endorsed that view (paragraph 9 above). The initial wind farm application had
included within its scope proposals to excavate stone but AMEC in the initial
environmental statement of February 2002 had made no decision on the source of
material for the construction of site roads (paragraph 10 above). By letter dated 9 May 2002 SEPA advised the respondents that they
considered the proposals for sourcing stone for the site roads to be integral
to the impact of the wind farm development.
In the event, the respondents resolved to grant planning permission for
the wind farm in November 2002 and included in the proposed permission a
planning condition (No 22) which required the developer before the development
commenced to submit detailed proposals for sourcing aggregate including any
necessary planning applications (paragraph 12 above). Thereafter AMEC in December 2002 lodged two
separate planning applications for the borrow pits and asked for a screening
opinion on whether the applications for the borrow pits would require an
environmental impact assessment. On 7 January 2003 the respondents opined
that such an assessment would not be required (paragraph 13 above). No
challenge has been made to that screening opinion. Neither SNH nor SEPA objected to the planning
application for the borrow pits. The petitioners,
Dr Jeremy Carter and others objected, arguing among other things that it was
unlawful to separate the borrow pits from the assessment of the environmental
effects of the wind farm. On 14 April 2003 the respondents
resolved to grant planning permission for the two borrow pits subject to the
prior issue of a permission for the wind farm and the inclusion of further planning
conditions (paragraph 14 above).
[72] In August 2006 AMEC included within their second amended
proposal (in appendices H-N) an assessment of the cumulative impact of the wind
farm and the borrow pits. The borrow
pits applications were for the extraction of roadstone from two pits which were to be located within
established commercial forestry plantations in close proximity to the wind farm
site. There were accordingly no issues
of visual intrusion. The assessment
proposed the use of ditches and settlement lagoons to prevent pollution of
watercourses from surface runoff and the protection of local ecology by not
operating the borrow pits in the breeding season of the bird species which
frequented the sites. Site restoration
works were to be agreed with the respondents and SNH. On pages 16-21 of the core document of the
second amended proposal AMEC summarised the cumulative impacts of the wind farm
and the borrow pits and concluded by stating that they had not identified any
likely significant cumulative environmental effects over and above the assessed
environmental effects of the wind farm.
[73] The petitioners did not challenge that conclusion. Their criticism of the respondents was that
they allowed the borrow pits to be separated from the wind farm assessment and
that when the cumulative assessment was made available to the public in August
2006 interested parties might have been misled as the respondents had already
resolved to grant permission to the borrow pits. This course of action was illegal because the
public had been deprived of an opportunity to comment on an environmental
assessment of the borrow pit proposals contrary to Regulation 13(5) of the 1999
Regulations. The issues therefore are
whether the public had such a right under the 1999 Regulations and whether the
public were deprived of an opportunity to comment on the environmental
assessment in relation to the borrow pits.
[74] I am satisfied that there has not been any breach of regulation
13 of the 1999 Regulations in relation to the borrow pits. As Mrs Wolffe submitted, Regulation 13(5),
which requires publication in a local newspaper and in the Edinburgh Gazette of
a notice of the availability of an environmental statement, applies only in an
EIA application. Because of the
screening opinion, the borrow pits applications were not EIA applications.
[75] It may have been unwise of the respondents to have allowed the
borrow pits applications to be separated from the wind farm application and to
have proceeded in 2003 without the inclusion of their environmental effects in
an assessment covering both the wind farm and the borrow pits. The separation of the borrow pits
applications from the application for the wind farm appears to have created
some confusion which can be seen in the report of the director of planning and
development of 27 February 2007 in which he proposed that planning conditions
relating to the borrow pits applications be imposed in the wind farm
permission. But that does not make the
decision illegal.
[76] It is undisputed that the borrow pits formed an integral part
of the wind farm development and Swale
Borough Council and BAA plc support
the view that a part of a development in such circumstances should not normally
be considered in isolation. But I am not
satisfied that it was illegal to separate the borrow pits from the assessment
of the wind farm. The initial assessment
in 2002 and the August 2006 assessment did not identify any significant
environmental effects of the borrow pits whether considered alone or
cumulatively with the wind farm. It is
consistent with Advocate General Gulmann's approach in Bund Naturschutz that the court should look at the particular
circumstances of each case in deciding whether a cumulative assessment is
needed to fulfil the purposes of the Directive.
While, as Mr Campbell
argued, the cumulative effects of the wind farm and the borrow pits are commutative,
I see no practical reason for an environmental impact assessment of the borrow
pits other than in the context of the wind farm application.
[77] In any event the problem, if such it was, was remedied. Having received legal advice and reconsidered
the matter, the respondents appear to have encouraged AMEC to present a
cumulative assessment in the second amended proposal. AMEC presented that assessment. The respondents were able thereby to consider
the cumulative impact of the wind farm and the borrow pits before they granted
planning permission to the wind farm.
[78] AMEC's second amended proposal, which included the cumulative
assessment, received the publicity required by the 1999 Regulations in relation
to the wind farm development. I am not
persuaded that interested parties would have been misled into believing that
they could not comment on the cumulative assessment so far as it related to the
borrow pits because the respondents had resolved to grant them conditional
planning permission in 2003. This is so
particularly as the borrow pits were subsidiary developments and the
permissions were conditional upon the grant of permission to the wind
farm. Parties who had an interest in the
environmental effects of the wind farm proposal would have seen from the
contents, introduction and text of the core document of the second amended
proposal that it addressed cumulative impact and that the relevant reports were
in appendices H-N. If interested parties
had wished to raise issues in relation to the environmental effects of the
borrow pits in the context of a consideration of the wind farm application and
its cumulative impact, there was nothing to stop them from doing so. Comments on cumulative impact and on the
planning conditions which were proposed in the 27 February report in relation
to the borrow pits would have been relevant to the determination of the wind
farm application. I am not persuaded
that parties who wished to comment on cumulative impact would have been
deterred from making any pertinent comments by the way in which that impact
came to be assessed.
[79] The 1999 Regulations are concerned with achieving a proper
environmental assessment in which the public have the opportunity to
participate. In this case, in contrast
with the circumstances in BAA plc,
the unchallenged conclusion of the cumulative impact assessment was that the
borrow pits would not give rise to any significant environmental effects beyond
those identified in the assessment of the wind farm. I am not satisfied that there has been any
failure to assess cumulative environmental effects or that democratic
participation in the assessment has been thwarted in any way. The challenge appears to be a technical one
rather than one with substantive content and I am not persuaded that the
technical challenge is justified. The
1999 Regulations are not designed to create an obstacle course for a developer
or a planning authority. This ground of
challenge fails.
[80] For the sake of completeness I record that, in a submission
addressing the hypothesis that the borrow pits were EIA development and arguing
that there had been substantive compliance with the requirements of the 1999
Regulations, Mrs Wolffe referred me to Burkett,
Smith, Brown and Prokopp (paragraph
31 above) and to R (Barker) v Broml