Adjacent development sites did not have to be treated as one project for EIA purposes (Wingfield v Canterbury CC (No. 1))

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of this case?
• What is the legal background to the case?
• What is the factual background to the case?
• What did the court find?
• EIA matters
• Procedural matters
• Case details

Article summary

Planning analysis: In Wingfield v Canterbury CC (No 1), the Planning Court dismissed a claim for judicial review, finding that two adjacent development sites, which were in separate ownership and being promoted and developed independently of each other, did not need to be considered as a single project for the purposes of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) regime.