Supreme Court, 1st May 2013
R (on the application of ClientEarth) (Appellant) v. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Respondent) – Supreme Court
Comments Off
Supreme Court refers air pollution case to the EU Court – UK Human Rights Blog
“The Supreme Court has taken the UK’s lack of compliance with EU legislation, Directive 2008/50 (limiting the amount of nitrogen dioxide in air) much more seriously than the courts below. It has made a declaration that the UK is in breach and has referred questions of interpretation concerning the Directive and remedies to the CJEU.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st May 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Comments Off
Growth and Infrastructure Act contains some welcome changes to village green regime, says expert – OUT-LAW.com
“A new law will make it harder for residents to use town and village green (TVG) laws to oppose the development of land, an expert has said.”
OUT-LAW.com, 1st May 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
Comments Off
UK government failing legal duty on air pollution, supreme court rules – The Guardian
“The UK government has failed in its legal duty to protect people from the harmful effects of air pollution, the supreme court ruled on Wednesday.”
The Guardian, 1st May 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Comments Off
Regina (Evans) v Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and another – WLR Daily
“The existence in English law of a ten year period after which a breach of planning control was no longer actionable was not incompatible with the terms of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive).”
WLR Daily, 19th April 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Comments Off
Uprichard (Appellant) v Scottish Ministers and another – Supreme Court
Uprichard (Appellant) v Scottish Ministers and another [2013] UKSC 21 | UKSC 2012/0034 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 24th April 2013
Comments Off
Planning policy versus the UN rights of the child – UK Human Rights Blog
“As the judge explicitly recognised, this case raised the clash of two principles – how to resolve the policy-driven field of planning with the rights of family under Article 8 ECHR and of the child under Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).”
UK Human Rights Blog, 11th April 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Comments Off
Conservation covenants – Law Commission
“We have opened a consultation asking whether England and Wales should adopt conservation covenants.”
Full press release and consultation
Law Commission, 28th March 2013
Source: www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission
Comments Off
Salzburger Flughafen GmbH v Umweltsenat (Landesumweltanwaltschaft Salzburg and another intervening) – WLR Daily
“When a member state, pursuant to article 4(2)(b) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC, with regard to projects falling within the scope of the discretion under Annex II whether to carry out an environmental assessment (‘EA’), established a threshold which was incompatible with the obligations laid down in articles 2(1) and 4(3) of that directive, the provisions of articles 2(1) and 4(2)(a) and (3) of the directive had direct effect, which meant that the competent national authorities had to ensure that it was first examined whether the projects concerned were likely to have significant effects on the environment and, if so, that an assessment of those effects was then undertaken.”
WLR Daily, 21st March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Comments Off
Regina (Thames Water Utilities Ltd) v Bromley Magistrates’ Court (No 2) – WLR Daily
An unintended escape of sewage amounted to a “deposit” for the purpose of an offence under section 33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
WLR Daily, 20th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Comments Off
Leth v Republic of Austria – WLR Daily
Leth v Republic of Austria: (Case C-420/11); [2013] WLR (D) 106
“The effect which a development project had on the value of material assets was not a factor that an assessor had to take into account under article 3 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended (OJ 1985 L175, p 40, OJ 1997 L73, p 5, OJ 2003 L156, p17) when undertaking an environmental impact assessment. However, pecuniary damage, in so far as it was the direct economic consequence of the environmental effects of a project, was covered by the objective of protection of the environment pursued by the Directive.”
WLR Daily, 14th March 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Comments Off
Setback for high speed rail after High Court ruling – Daily Telegraph
“The Government’s HS2 high-speed rail scheme suffered a setback today when the
High Court ruled that the consultation process for compensating those affected
by the multibillion-pound project ‘was so unfair as to be unlawful’.”
Daily Telegraph, 15th March 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Comments Off
High Court to rule on bid to derail HS2 – Daily Telegraph
“Opponents are asking a judge in London to declare in a series of five cases that
the multi-billion pound project is legally flawed and must be sent back for
reconsideration.”
Daily Telegraph, 15th March 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Comments Off
Supreme court may force air pollution legislation – The Guardian
“The supreme court could force the government to take steps to urgently reduce dangerous air pollution in many British cities to meet European limits, following a landmark hearing this week.”
The Guardian, 7th March 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Comments Off
Court of Appeal downplays Aarhus – UK Human Rights Blog
“There have been important pronouncements over the years by the Aarhus Compliance Committee (ACC) about whether the UK planning system complies with the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Aarhus Convention).”
UK Human Rights Blog, 4th March 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Comments Off
‘Wednesbury’ unreasonableness correct test for screening direction challenges, says Court of Appeal – OUT-LAW.com
“When deciding whether an environmental impact assessment (EIA) screening direction by the Secretary of State (SoS) was lawful, the appropriate test to apply is the Wednesbury unreasonableness test, the Court of Appeal has ruled.”
OUT-LAW.com, 25th February 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
Comments Off
Sellafield to be prosecuted for sending radioactive waste to wrong disposal site – The Guardian
“Environment Agency takes nuclear firm to court after waste went to landfill instead of Drigg site.”
The Guardian, 7th February 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Comments Off
Britain faces UN tribunal over Chagos Islands marine reserve – The Guardian
“Britain’s colonial-era decision to sever an Indian Ocean archipelago from Mauritius and turn it into a US military base will have to be justified before an international tribunal – a process that could lead to the return of the islands’ exiled inhabitants.”
The Guardian, 28th January 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Comments Off
The polluted air that we breathe: Supreme Court to hear case – UK Human Rights Blog
“Back in the late spring, it seemed as if ClientEarth’s claim against Defra in respect of air pollution had run into the buffers. It had been refused by the Court of Appeal, in reasons given extempore: see my earlier post before Bailii received the judgment. Not many such refused cases make it to the Supreme Court, but this one has.”
UK Human Rights Blog, 15th January 2013
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
Comments Off
Cracking Down on Waste Crime report: greater transparency is needed – Halsbury’s Law Exchange
“The Environment Agency was established under the Environment Act 1995 and plays a central role in ensuring that environmental laws are complied with. Presently, it is the principal environmental regulatory body in England and Wales, although this will change as from 1 April 2013, when the Natural Resources Body for Wales commences operating. Thereafter, that body will perform the functions previously performed by Environment Agency Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Forestry Commission Wales.”
Halsbury’s Law exchange, 20th December 2012
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
Comments Off
