Elvin D.,Landmark Chambers
Environmental Law and Management | Year: 2012
The system covers applications for major energy generation, railways, ports, major roads, airports, plus water and hazardous waste infrastructure. Under the PA 2008, applications for development consent for a NSIP were determined by the IPC. There had been considerable criticism from developers of the PA 2008 and the IPC. In particular, it was argued that the process was front-loaded with burdensome pre-application consultation and formal requirements for an application to be accepted. Section 128 and Schedule 13 of the LA 2011 provide for the abolition of the IPC; it was duly abolished on 31 March 2012 and its functions were transferred to a new National Infrastructure Directorate that has been created within a restructured Planning Inspectorate. From April 2012, the relevant Secretary of State has been the decision-maker on all national infrastructure applications for development consent.
Maurici J.,Landmark Chambers
Journal of Water Law | Year: 2010
Marine Management Organization (MMO) plays an important role in the areas involving licensing and marine works, marine planning, enforcement, and conservation. The power to issue licenses is one area which could be expected to be vulnerable to judicial review. The paucity of challenges to the granting of licenses under FEPA is the more striking considering that, unlike under the 2009 Act, FEPA does not provide an independent mechanism to appeal licensing decisions. The MMO may also be vulnerable to judicial review proceedings in relation to decisions taken by it which are affected by marine policy documents. The seizure of a vessel and the demand for a bond to be paid for the return of fish, gear or vessels which have been detained are the most draconian of the MMO's enforcement powers under the 2009 Act given the resulting financial consequences.
Nathalie Lieven Q.C.,Landmark Chambers
Environmental Law and Management | Year: 2010
Nathalie Lieven QC from Landmark Chambers, London seeks to identify the main areas of development concerning climate change over the past 18 months and to highlight those matters most likely to cause concern to developers and decision-makers alike. There have been two important developments concerning the directive itself. The first, R (Baker) v Bath & North East Somerset Council (2009) Env LR 27 has called into question whether the EIA Directive has been properly implemented by Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations. In the second, Ardagh Glass Ltd v Chester City Council (2010) EWCA Civ 172, the Court of Appeal has had to consider whether planning permission can be granted retrospectively for an EIA development. The case concerned a glass works constructed by Quinn Glass Ltd at Elton, near Chester, without the requisite planning permission and other consents.
Maurici J.,Landmark Chambers |
Mills A.,Landmark Chambers |
Mills A.,Cambridge College
Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law | Year: 2014
The United Kingdom Supreme Court has considered the requirements of environmental impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment in the context of a high speed rail scheme to be introduced by parliamentary procedure. The case is important for its detailed analysis of how parliamentary processes relate to the requirements of European Union environmental law. The Supreme Court has also made revealing comments about its view of the proper relationship between the domestic and European legal order. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Maurici J.,Landmark Chambers
Environmental Law and Management | Year: 2011
A number of complaints to the Aarhus Compliance Committee have been brought raising the issue of prohibitive costs in the United Kingdom. The key one related to an alleged failure to provide access to justice to challenge a government license issued to the Port of Tyne allowing for the disposal and protective capping of highly contaminated port dredge materials at an existing marine disposal site. The Committee concludes that despite the various measures available to address prohibitive costs, taken together they do not ensure that the costs remain at a level which meets the requirements under the Convention. There is consequently much to gain from challenging the imposition of a civil penalty, especially in light of the wide powers of the Tribunal pursuant to Regulation 10(6) of the ECS Order 2010. The Environment Tribunal has not yet heard any cases, but, going forward, it appears that it could have a substantial workload.