Parish council refused permission to challenge approval for retirement village

She said this meant Chigwell’s four grounds of challenge fell away and had anyway all been unarguable.

The parish said the EIA screening opinion set out in the relevant officer's report was flawed and the grant of planning permission consequently unlawful.

It said the development ought to have been subject to an EIA in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.

Chigwell brought its case on four grounds, but the judge said before considering these she must determine whether the proposed development needed an EIA .

She explained: “If it is not an EIA development, then there is no requirement for an EIA and (as is accepted by Chigwell) this challenge to the granting of permission cannot proceed.”

HHJ Walden-Smith said the proposed development contained 144 dwellings and the fact that some care would be provided did not prevent them from being dwelling houses in the natural and ordinary meaning of the term, in particular as the 2017 Regulations expressly account for development which does not exclusively comprise dwelling houses.

“In the circumstances, an EIA is not required and this challenge must fail at the preliminary issue,” she said.

"While it is submitted on behalf of Chigwell that permission should be granted in order that the meaning of ‘dwelling house’ in the context of EIA can be determined, that does not give rise to a basis for giving permission. It is not an arguable point. It is well settled that dwelling-house has an ordinary meaning and Rectory Homes deals with the arguments now being put forward.”

The judge then briefly dealt with Chigwell’s grounds, the first of which was that instead of using the 2017 regulations the officer wrongly applied the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999.

She said this was not a material error and the differences between the two were not relevant.

Chigwell’s second ground was a failure to have regard to a 2017 sustainability appraisal report, but the judge called this “an exercise in ‘forensic archaeology' and "…the site is allocated in the local plan and that is unchallengeable”.

HHJ Walden-Smith dismissed an irrationality challenge as unarguable and rejected a fourth ground on lack of reasons by noting “while the reasoning is brief, it is in my judgment, sufficient”.

Mark Smulian