R (Champion) v North Norfolk District Council [2015] UKSC 52
Champion is an important Supreme Court decision on Environmental Impact Assessment, Habitats assessment and the court’s approach to remedy where the planning process has gone wrong procedurally.
The case concerned development close to the River Wensum Special Area of Conservation. The Supreme Court held that the proposal should have been treated as EIA development, but ultimately refused to quash the permission because the environmental issues had nevertheless been fully investigated and the public had been able to participate.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2015] UKSC 52; [2015] 1 WLR 3710
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Judgment date
- 22nd July 2015
- Judge
- Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Carnwath and Lord Toulson
Need help with a planning application?
Planning Geek isn’t just a reference site - preparing and submitting planning applications is what we do. If you’d like a hand with an application, an appeal or any other planning matter, we’d be glad to help.
The EIA screening decision was defective
The original screening opinion had been reached before the pollution-prevention measures were sufficiently developed. On the information then available there remained a real possibility of significant environmental effects on the River Wensum.
The Supreme Court held that the proposal should therefore have been treated as EIA development. Later investigations and mitigation could not retrospectively convert a legally defective screening decision into a lawful one outside the procedural framework of the EIA Regulations.
EIA screening should be kept under review
A negative screening opinion made at an early stage is not necessarily the end of the matter. If material new information emerges, the authority may need to revisit whether EIA is required before permission is granted.
Habitats assessment is different from EIA screening
The judgment also considered Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. Lord Carnwath warned against importing the formal EIA concept of a separate statutory screening opinion into the Habitats regime. The legal question is whether the threshold for appropriate assessment is met and, if so, whether the competent authority can be satisfied to the required standard that the site’s integrity will not be adversely affected.
Important later-law warning: People Over Wind
Champion must now be read with later European case law. In particular, People Over Wind subsequently held that mitigation measures intended to avoid or reduce harmful effects cannot be taken into account when deciding at the Habitats screening stage whether an appropriate assessment is required.
Champion therefore remains highly important for EIA, procedure and remedy, but its discussion of mitigation in the Habitats screening context should not be treated as the current final statement of that particular point.
A procedural error does not automatically mean quashing
Although the EIA procedure had been unlawful, the Supreme Court refused relief. The environmental risk had in practice been thoroughly investigated, the statutory agencies had been involved, the public had participated and there was no reason to think a compliant EIA process would have produced a different decision.
The case therefore remains important on the court’s discretion in public-law planning challenges: establishing an error and obtaining a quashing order are separate questions.
Read the full Champion judgment
Planning Geek holds the Supreme Court judgment in the protected case law library. Gold Members can open the PDF below.
Champion Case Law Page Updated: 11th September 2026