Must read
Cyber Security and Resilience Bill: Why Local Authorities Cannot Afford to Wait
The UK Government’s proposed Cyber Security and Resilience Bill is likely to mark a significant shift in regulatory expectations. Jonathan Askin, Partner at Hugh James, explores the reasons why.
Action stations
- Details
Local residents have failed in a High Court challenge to a waste transfer station. Paul Shadarevian and Clare Parry explain why.
In Hockley v Essex County Council [2013] EWHC 4051 (Admin) Lindblom J has rejected a challenge by Mr and Mrs Hockley to a waste transfer station (“WTS”) in Great Dunmow, Essex.
The claimants challenged Essex County Council’s (“ECC”) decision that no Environmental Impact Assessment was required for the WTS. They argued that:
- The standard of review of an authority’s decisions on a screening opinion is not as high as perversity.
- In reaching a decision on whether the development was likely to have significant effects ECC should have considered the project cumulatively with impacts from future planned housing schemes in the area, junction improvement works that might come forwards, and the possibility that the remainder of the site might come forwards as a civil amenity site.
The judge held that:
- The Court of Appeal had already confirmed that screening involves a fact finding exercise and questions of likelihood and significance of effects were questions of judgment for the authority subject to review on normal public law principles.
- There was an insuperable difficulty in the claimants’ submissions on cumulative effect in that there was no evidence before the Court of a potentially significant cumulative effect attributable at least in part to the proposed WTS. It was not enough to simply assert that other developments would have a significant effect (in this case through increased traffic) in the absence of clear evidence the screened development would add to that effect. It was telling that the points about cumulative impact and project splitting were not taken at screening stage or when the application was being considered.
- There had to be a sensible limit to what a screening decision-maker was expected to do. "Conjecture about future development on other sites that might or might not act with the development in question to produce indirect, secondary or cumulative effects is not in the screening decision-maker’s remit. I do not think that the precautionary approach extends to that.”
The claimants are now seeking permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Paul Shadarevian and Clare Parry of Cornerstone Barristers represented Essex County Council.
Related Articles
Article 4 Directions in Wales
10-11-2025
Not all fun and games
10-11-2025
Zip-wires in caverns
06-11-2025
Sponsored articles
Unlocking legal talent
Jonathan Bourne of Damar Training sets out why in-house council teams and law firms should embrace apprenticeships.
Walker Morris supports Tower Hamlets Council in first known Remediation Contribution Order application issued by local authority
Walker Morris has supported Tower Hamlets London Borough Council (LBTH) in issuing what is believed to be one of the first Remediation…
Minerals webinar series - Part 1: Minerals plan-making: the next phase - Landmark Chambers
08-06-2026
08-06-2026
LPAs and the DCO Examination Process - Practical Tips for LPAs - Francis Taylor Building
09-06-2026 1:00 pm
09-06-2026 1:00 pm
Planning High Court Challenges 2026 Webinar Series - Session 2: Law & Practice - Landmark Chambers
16-11-2026
16-11-2026
Planning High Court Challenges 2026 Webinar Series - Session 3: Substantive law - Landmark Chambers
23-11-2026
23-11-2026






