Demolition and construction of sports pavilion does not require EIA screening opinion, says High Court judge

A local authority had granted planning permission for a sixth form college to demolish a sports pavilion on its playing field and erect a new one. It had not been obliged to carry out a screening opinion under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (the EIA Regulations) as the development was not an infrastructure project, did not have significant effects on the environment and did not exceed 0.5 hectares in size, the ruling said.

The judge said that even if the project had been an urban development, the local authority had been entitled to decide not to carry out a screening opinion on the grounds that the development was unlikely to have significant effects on the environment. The size of the development area also fell below the 0.5 hectare threshold for when a development can be classed as an infrastructure project. Accordingly, the judge dismissed an application for judicial review of the local authority's decision to grant the planning permission.

"I do not think the demolition of the existing pavilion and the construction of a new sports pavilion as described in the Planning Committee report amounts to an urban development project," the judge said. "I can not see how in any true meaning of the construction of the phrase “infrastructure projects” the construction of a small sports pavilion on a small sports pitch can be classed as an infrastructure project," he said.

The judge referred to the EIA Regulations which lists "the construction of a shopping centres and car parks, sport stadiums, leisure centres and multiplex cinemas" as types of development that can be classified as infrastructure projects. He also pointed to EU guidance which sets out that "the term 'infrastructure' is widely interpreted and may include roads, power and other utilities services provided to facilitate the growth of industries."

The judge further refused an application by the local authority to strike out the application for judicial review. He said that the hearing had taken a whole day and it would not be appropriate to strike out a claim after "such a substantial hearing".