Environmental Protection in UK Law

They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the "principal important controversial issues", disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds.

I have set out the required monitoring methodology in detail because it demonstrates, first, the extent of the operator's duty to monitor and, secondly, the close co-operation contemplated between the operator and the officers of the Environment Agency in achieving environmental protection. The procedure provided does not support a construction of 2.6.12 which gives the first and last word in determining whether a breach of condition has occurred to the officer of the Agency.

Second, the statute does not in terms require that a development must perform a preserving or enhancing function. The court is not here concerned with enhancement, but the ordinary meaning of "preserve" as a transitive verb is "to keep safe from harm or injury; to keep in safety, save, take care of, guard" (OED (2nd edn) Vol XII, P 404). In my judgment character or appearance can be said to be preserved where they are not harmed.

Where the Secretary of State or an inspector appointed by him has to consider whether a right of way that is marked on a definitive map in fact exists, he must start with an initial presumption that it does. If there were no evidence which made it reasonably arguable that such a right of way existed, it should not have been marked on the map. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it should be assumed that the proper procedures were followed and thus that such evidence existed.

But I reject any suggestion that the state can have any regard to cost in fixing the target date for compliance or in determining the route by which the compliance can be achieved where one route produces results quicker than another. In those respects the determining consideration has to be the efficacy of the measure in question and not their cost. That, it seems to me, flows inevitably from the requirements in the Article to keep the exceedance period as short as possible.

Section 73 (1) is on its face limited to permission for the development of land “without complying with conditions” subject to which a previous planning permission has been granted. In other words the purpose of such an application is to avoid committing a breach of planning control of the second type referred to in section 171A. The natural inference from that imperative is that the planning authority cannot use section 73 to change the description of the development.

In these circumstances there is no need for any preliminary notice of any charge, or anything of that sort. Take the case where a police-officer is suspected of misconduct. He is not given notice of any charge at that stage, nor any opportunity of being heard. The rules of natural justice do not apply unless and until it is decided to take proceedings. For instance, the Stockexchange may suspend dealings in a company's shares.