“Ms Turner has a BA Hons (Archaeology) and is a historic environment specialist working in the heritage sector since 1992, working first as a field archaeologist and then as a senior geomatician/archaeological surveyor. In 2001 she moved into the role of historic environment adviser with two different national landscapes before joining the Forestry Commission in 2021. Ms Turner has 23 years of experience advising on heritage within [the] rural and countryside context, forestry, agri-environment and working within both the planning and UKFS regulation forums. … Mr Gray has been a Chartered Landscape Architect since 1998 and was a Member of the Landscape Institute Technical Committee 2017-2023. He has nearly thirty years of experience within the forestry and woodland creation sector and produced several landscape character assessments for National Landscapes, local authorities, and Wildlife Trusts. Mr Gray has extensive experience of spatial planning issues compiling responses to planning applications for statutory agencies and a Community Forest. Mr Gray has worked as a Landscape & Woodland Design Advisor with the Forestry Commission since 2021.”
“Woodland creation of the scale proposed would have a transformative effect on the character of the landscape which has some existing value and sensitivity. If sensitively designed a new large multi-purpose woodland would not be out of keeping with the wider character of the landscape and could bring many benefits. It would be important that the sensitivities within the site were understood, and influenced the design process from an early stage, and that opportunities to meet wider environmental objectives – particularly in respect of nature recovery, recreation and the water environment – were maximised. … Parkland Conserving the historic parkland would require retention of open space in key areas and management of that land through grazing to maintain its character and maintain/enhance its biodiversity as parkland / wood pasture. The design needs to be underpinned by a detailed understanding of the significance of the park as a heritage asset and the listed features within it. Potential exists to better reveal significance including opening up access along historic routes and conserving/restoring parkland features/structures. Consideration should be given to retention/creation of lowland wood pasture as specific component of the scheme. Views The valley landscapes of the coalfield are very legible because of the sloping terrain which affords widespread and diverse views of and from the landscape. Panoramic views from high ground are a notable feature. Extensive afforestation has the potential to obscure views comprehensively. Care will need to be taken to retain important elements of existing views and create new opportunities for significant views from new public vantage points. Scale/Fit Extensive afforestation has the potential to over-write/overwhelm existing landscape character. Care will need to be taken to retaining important landscape features as a legible part of its new structure and to design compartments, open spaces, margins and rides to ensure that the woodlands fits within rather than overwhelms the local landscape and interlocks with surrounding field patterns. As noted above, complexes of medium scale woodlands are characteristic of this landscape and could act as a model for how a larger woodland can be made to fit within the landscape. …”
“It is important that all significant heritage features and designated heritage assets are protected, and that consideration is given to the conservation and enhancement of historic landscapes. Forests can offer a relatively stable environment in which many heritage features survive. However, good management is needed to ensure that these features are preserved for the future and are not damaged by forest operations. … Steps should be taken to ensure that heritage features, which may be adversely affected by forestry, are known and assessed on an individual site basis, checking Historic Environment Records and obtaining information and advice where appropriate. Forest management plans and operational plans should set out how designated heritage assets, significant heritage features and woodland heritage such as veteran trees are to be protected and managed, and should clearly show their location and extent. … As a guide, a margin of at least 20m should be identified and maintained around designated heritage assets such as Scheduled Monuments and other significant heritage features, but this will depend on the site itself… … Integrate historic environment considerations into the forest planning process by identifying relevant heritage features and evidencing management decisions, and including long-established boundaries and woodland heritage as features to be protected”
“Forests should be designed and managed to take account of the landscape context, considering the sensitivity, character and distinctiveness of the local area in line with the European Landscape Convention. Forests should be designed and managed in consultation with statutory bodies to take account of landscape designations, designed landscapes, historic landscapes and the various policies and strategies that apply. … Forest design principles, informed by the landscape context, should be applied to ensure landscape and visual aspects are appropriately addressed”
“From a historic environment point of view this is a UKFS compliant scheme. The applicant commissioned survey where the evidence was significant and either removed areas of archaeological sensitivity from the scheme or combined open space and buffers to ensure that the historic environment is conserved.”
“An LCA is an accepted approach used to identify and analyse the consistent pattern of elements (e.g. geology and geodiversity, landform, watercourses, land-use and settlement patterns) that make landscapes distinct, and to categorise and map these as landscape character types. This approach can be applied at any scale and can be used in the forest design process to gather and appraise landscape baseline information and inform forest design concept options… An LCA will usually include: • A description and mapping of the landscape, including the key characteristics and special qualities of a landscape, including those relating to trees and forests. • An evaluation of the landscape, its condition and strength of character. … Where available, formal LCA studies provide an essential starting point for forest design, and will inform how the siting, extent and composition of forests can be planned so that they make a positive contribution to the landscape. This is particularly important for significant areas of new woodland or large-scale felling and restocking (or regeneration) proposals that may impact on sensitive landscapes.”
“In terms of my overall comments, many of those that I made in June last year still apply and I won’t repeat them here. In respect of the key issues I raised at that time: 1. Conserving and enhancing heritage assets including key elements of the historic parkland and its listed buildings/structure. The most recent design iteration avoids the key features of the historic parkland and preserves its most significant interior and outward views. … 3. Conserving existing landscape features of value and integrating them as legible elements in the new landscape. The most recent design iteration avoids many significant landscape features by removing planting from much of the parkland and land to the north and south-east of it. It retains most of the better field boundaries and features of historic interest within planted areas although the legibility and long-term viability of some features will suffer from being buried in the crop. This is inevitable for a scheme of this size. I don’t believe that there are any features of notable importance that would be affected. Consideration should be given at the detailed level to the retention of field trees – particularly those lying east of Gorecock Lane (Character Area 4) – with sufficient space haloed around them to allow them to mature as future veterans and enhance woodland biodiversity close to the corridor along the Newhouse Burn.[ The Commission responded to this point, on19 September 2024 : “We agree. (Agent undertaking woodland creation scheme confirmed two points via email: 1. All infield trees and edge trees will be protected with appropriate open space as shown on version 16 of the design. 2. There will be increased public access (see the attached map).” ] Careful analysis of views of and from the site informing overall scale, design of compartments, deployment of open spaces, species composition, edges and rides ethe Commission. Although the LCA analyses the varying sensitivities of different parts of the site there is no information on how and to what extent the final design has been influenced by that analysis, or by an analysis of wider views or wider landscape character. The LCA doesn’t contain a detailed analysis of viewpoints in the wider landscape and isn’t comprehensive in the views it does identify – largely because of its remit. The scale of the forest has been reduced by the removal of some strategic areas – particularly much of the historic park, areas south of it to the A691 and in the north either side of Tower Plantation together with the area south of Greenland Farm – all of which would be beneficial in reducing its perceived scale and helping assimilate it into the local landscape. Consideration has been given to the detailed design of key edges, and of rides followed by public footpaths.”
“This is a large scale application within a landscape that has significant existing woodland elements within it. The proposal has at its core productive spruce as the major element within the application… The key feature with respect to the application is the presence of the designed Greencroft Park; the core of the park has been removed from this application…Nevertheless the Park forms the context for this application and guided the production of the Landscape Character Appraisal and Parkland…, further requests from the applicant (detailed designs and visualisations) and this assessment based on version 16 of the Woodland Design Concept Plan. … Since first presented FC the applicant has made various amendments towards bringing the scheme to UKFS compliance (see detailed comments) … • Removal of planting to the south-east of the site (where Parkland landscape is dominant) based on the analysis within the Appraisal. • Elements of broadleaf woodland proposed next to the Newhouse Burn to create a more ‘naturalistic’ approach to the valley here. • Extend open space to ensure legibility of Tower Avenue (designed landscape). … Overall, it is considered that the scheme will meet UKFS compliance. Whilst the scale of spruce is extensive this has been limited to the least sensitive areas and now has elements of broadleaf, as well as retaining open space around existing features (hedges and trees). …we do consider that the landscape context of this site can accommodate this scale of change and the mitigation is sufficient to comply with UKFS”
“A landscape character appraisal has been undertaken using the County Durham Landscape Strategy. This has informed changes to the design such as removing compartments where there are landscape sensitivities (designed landscape) and focusing on the plantation on the western part of the site where the landscape sensitivity is less. Extensive conifer has been reduced to areas that can accommodate that change i.e. larger scale landscape on the west and south of site and upper slopes where landscape more resilient. Version 16 has removed woodland from more sensitive-intimate areas (cpt.10) or mitigated by broadleaf within the Newhouse Burn valley. Version 16 incorporates more open space and more broadleaf. … Mitigation i.e. broadleaf framework has reduced impact of the scale of plantation nevertheless, there will be residual impact however the scale of the existing landscape suggests capacity to accommodate change.”
“A full Historic Environment and Landscape report commissioned by the applicant has been taken account of in order to protect HE and landscape features. Dere Street Roman Road and other archaeology south Esp Green Farm. Greencroft Geophysical Survey Report as per FC specification completed. Buffers to be applied as per UKFS guidance. Forestry Commission comments: Though not a scheduled monument it must be treated as such. 50m open space buffer (25m from either side of centre line) applied to Dere Street. Lady Well buffered to 20m. Lanchester Conservation Area. Field to be treated sensitively as part of design. Former Wagonway and Colliery. Buffer to 10m and leave as managed open space. Local Park of historic interest. Scheme design around the features advised by FC’s Historic Environment Adviser. Removal of proposed forested areas around parkland and increased open space along beech avenue. Plantation crop tobe used in the scallop to the west of the ‘Shoulder of Mutton’ (NZ157496) to help retain the sense of permanent woodland against a ‘farmed’ environment. Greencroft Combined Landscape and Historic Assessment completed. UKFS compliant; Jessica Turner, FC’s Historic Environment Adviser,22/08/2024 . No impact”
“The scheme was subject to an independent landscape and Historic Environment study commissioned by the applicant. This informed the design. The design also benefited from advice and input from the FC Landscape Advisor. Edge treatment with low density native shrubby MB 15m buffer along the road lines. Greencroft Woodland Landscape Character Appraisal and Parkland Plan & Greencroft Landscape Edge Treatments completed. Tower Avenue. Feature to be protected by open ground. Tower Road Viewpoint. Forestry Commission requests this viewpoint left open. Scheme pulled down the slope to ~25m below the viewpoint. UKFS compliant; Robin Gray, FC’s Landscape Adviser,20/08/2024 ;[ I understand that it is accepted that this was intended to be a reference to Mr Gray’s12 September 2024 assessment. ] and Jessica Turner, FC’s Historic Environment Adviser,05/09/2024 . No impact”
“Considering the effects/mitigation detailed in 2a, will any element of the project have significant effect or impact on the environment? i.e. is our consent required?”
“…“irrationality” or, as it is more accurately described, unreasonableness…has two aspects. The first is concerned with whether the decision under review is capable of being justified or whether in the classic Wednesbury formulation it is “so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it”: see Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corpn[1948] 1 KB 223 , 233-234. Another, simpler formulation of the test which avoids tautology is whether the decision is outside the range of reasonable decisions open to the decision-maker: see e.g. Boddington v. British Transport Police[1999] 2 AC 143 , 175, per Lord Steyn. The second aspect of irrationality/unreasonableness is concerned with the process by which the decision was reached. A decision may be challenged on the basis that there is a demonstrable flaw in the reasoning which led to it - for example, that significant reliance was placed on an irrelevant consideration, or that there was no evidence to support an important step in the reasoning, or that the reasoning involved a serious logical or methodological error. Factual error, although it has been recognised as a separate principle, can also be regarded as an example of flawed reasoning - the test being whether a mistake as to a fact which was uncontentious and objectively verifiable played a material part in the decision-maker’s reasoning: see E v. Secretary of State for the Home Department[2004] QB 1044 .”
“The questions of whether there is sufficient information to issue a screening opinion/decision, and whether a proposed development was likely to have significant effects on the environment, are matters of judgment for the decision-maker: see R (on the application of Birchall Gardens LLP) v. Hertfordshire CC [2106] EWHC 2794 (Admin) paragraphs 66 and 67, and Evans v. Secretary of State[2013] EWCA Civ 115 . In the latter case, Beatson LJ said: “22. The assessment of the significance of an impact or impacts on the environment has been described as essentially a fact-finding exercise which requires the exercise of judgment on the issues of “likelihood” and “significance”: see…Jones v. Mansfield[2003] EWCA Civ 1408 at [17] and [61] per Dyson and Carnwath LJJ. Carnwath LJ stated that, because the word “significant” does not lay down a precise legal test but requires the exercise of judgment on planning issues and consistency in the exercise of that judgment in different cases, the function is one for which the courts are ill-equipped.” …”
“An appellant seeking to argue that the decision-maker (and, by extension, the judge) reached a conclusion for which there was no evidential basis invariably faces an uphill task. Such a task is made even more difficult in a situation like the present case, given that the screening direction is a preliminary, broad-based assessment of environmental impacts, undertaken by those with relevant training and planning expertise.” “22. The assessment of the significance of an impact or impacts on the environment has been described as essentially a fact-finding exercise which requires the exercise of judgment on the issues of “likelihood” and “significance”: see…Jones v. Mansfield[2003] EWCA Civ 1408 at [17] and [61] per Dyson and Carnwath LJJ. Carnwath LJ stated that, because the word “significant” does not lay down a precise legal test but requires the exercise of judgment on planning issues and consistency in the exercise of that judgment in different cases, the function is one for which the courts are ill-equipped.”
“The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. 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. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. 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. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.”
“… 3. The site is not within the floodplain or in an area of high-medium flood risk, no public right of way is affected by the proposal, and there are no Tree Preservation Orders within the site. In addition, the proposal does not affect a Scheduled Ancient Monument and the development is not within an environmentally sensitive area. 4. The main impacts of the development are likely to be: increase in traffic movements, landscape impact, and noise disturbance to nearby residents. Transport, Landscape and Noise Assessments are to be provided with the application. 5. Having regard to the selection criteria in Schedule 3 to the Regulations, particularly noting the size of the development, cumulation with the existing development and potential impact, it is considered that this major development will not have more than local importance, will not be proposed for a particularly environmentally sensitive or vulnerable location, and will not have unusually complex and potentially hazardous environmental effects.”
“9. …in R (Mellor) v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Case C-75/08 ), [2010] Env LR 18 the European Court of Justice confirmed that a decision that a development did not require an EIA must contain or be accompanied by sufficient information to make it possible to check that it was based on adequate screening carried out in accordance with the directive. The court held that it is necessary for third parties, as well as the administrative authorities concerned, to be able to satisfy themselves that the competent authority has actually determined, in accordance with the rules laid down by national law, that an EIA was or was not necessary and for them to have sufficient information to enable them to challenge the decision by legal proceedings, if that is thought appropriate. 10. The following passages in the judgment are of particular relevance: “59. …the competent national authority is under a duty to inform [interested parties] of the reasons on which its refusal is based, either in the decision itself or in a subsequent communication made at their request… 60. That subsequent communication may take the form, not only of an express statement of the reasons, but also of information and relevant documents being made available in response to the request made.” … 11. In R (Friends of Basildon Golf Course) v. Basildon District Council[2010] EWCA Civ 1432 Pill LJ, with whom Carnwath and Rimer LJJ agreed, emphasised in paragraph 62 of his judgment that the decision taken on a screening opinion must be carefully and conscientiously considered and must be based on information which is both sufficient and accurate. The opinion need not be elaborate, but must demonstrate that the issues have been understood and considered. … 20. …I…return to the substance of the argument, which is that the planning officer failed to demonstrate that she had considered the likely effect of the development in relation to traffic movements, the landscape and noise or, if she had, to explain why an EIA was not required in this case. When considering a submission of this kind I think it important to bear in mind the nature of what is involved in giving a screening opinion. It is not intended to involve a detailed assessment of factors relevant to the grant of planning permission; that comes later and will ordinarily include an assessment of environmental factors, among others. Nor does it involve a full assessment of any identifiable environmental effects. It involves only a decision, almost inevitably on the basis of less than complete information, whether an EIA needs to be undertaken at all. I think it important, therefore, that the court should not impose too high a burden on planning authorities in relation to what is no more than a procedure intended to identify the relatively small number of cases in which the development is likely to have significant effects on the environment, hence the term “screening opinion”. 21. Having said that, it is clear from Mellor that when adopting a screening opinion the planning authority must provide sufficient information to enable anyone interested in the decision to see that proper consideration has been given to the possible environmental effects of the development and to understand the reasons for the decision. Such information may be contained in the screening opinion itself or in separate reasons, if necessary combined with additional material provided on request. 22. …It is true that the planning officer’s reasons must be read in the context of the letter to which they were a response, but nowhere in them does one find set out a clear statement of her reasons for concluding either that there will be no discernible effects in relation to traffic movements, landscape or noise, or that, if there may be, they will not be sufficiently serious to be regarded as significant… … 24. Following the hearing Mr. Lewis helpfully drew our attention to the very recent decision of this court in R (Wye Valley Action Association Ltd) v. Herefordshire Council[2011] EWCA Civ 20 , another case in which the court had to consider the adequacy of a screening opinion. The primary issue in that case was whether the council’s decision that the rotation of polytunnels for growing soft fruit was not a Schedule 2 development because it did not constitute “a project for the use of uncultivated land or a semi-natural area”
“The application involves the rotation of polytunnels for the purposes of growing soft fruit in the ground and on land that is already cultivated (mixture of arable and turf production).” 26. Richards LJ, with whom Rix and Smith LJJ agreed, dealt with the question relatively briefly. He held in paragraph 47 of his judgment that the reasons given in the screening opinion were adequate because it was clear enough from what had been said that the decision was based on the fact that the extent of existing cultivation was such as to take the land in question outside the description “uncultivated land or semi-natural areas”
“…The proposals would have an impact on the character of the area. However indicative plans submitted indicate that the proposals would aim to limit the impact by retaining the majority of the mature trees on the site and existing landscaping. It would be unreasonable, therefore, on the evidence available at this stage to suggest that the likely effect on the environment would be “significant” enough to justify the requirement of an EIA taking into account the characteristics of the development. … …none of the site is located within a geographically sensitive location although the site is located adjacent to a County Wildlife Site. In summary, it would be unreasonable, therefore, on the evidence available at this stage to suggest that the likely effect on the environment would be “significant” enough to justify the requirement of an EIA taking into account the location of the development. … The Council has in making the above professional judgments, assessed the potential significant effects of the development… On the evaluation of the information submitted by the applicant, and the Council’s knowledge of the local area and its environment, bearing in mind that it is not required to have full knowledge of every environmental effect, it is considered that the proposed development is not likely to give rise to significant environmental effects on the environment. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is therefore not required for the proposed development shown on the submitted drawings by the applicant.”
“18. [Counsel for the appellant submitted that, as] in Bateman, there was no clear statement of [the officer’s] reasons for her conclusion that the proposed development was not likely to have significant environmental effects. The “reasons” amounted to no more than a bare conclusion. 19. While there is some force in this submission, the circumstances of this case are very different from those in Bateman. In Bateman the screening opinion had concluded (unsurprisingly) that the main impacts of a proposal to expand a grain storage facility with a capacity of 90,000 tons in 12 silos to a capacity of 300,000 tons in 60 additional silos each about 18 metres high and 23 metres in diameter, were likely to be “increase in traffic movements, landscape impact and noise disturbance to local residents” (see paragraph 6 of the judgment of Moore-Bick LJ). In those circumstances, an explanation as to why those impacts on the environment were not likely to be significant was called for, and was not contained in the screening opinion. … 21. The adequacy of the reasons given by [the officer] for her conclusion that the proposed development was not likely to have significant environmental effects must be considered in the context of the answer to the first ground of appeal: that on a fair reading of the screening opinion Mrs Denmark did not fail to have regard to the issue of cumulative impact, or any of the other factors identified in Schedule 3. She did have regard to them, but having considered them she concluded that only one matter - the visual impact of a significant element of built form within a rural area - might have been capable of justifying a conclusion that there would be a significant environmental impact, but concluded that it did not. Unlike Bateman, there is nothing in this screening opinion which cries out for further explanation. A fair summary of this screening opinion is that it tells the reader that there is nothing about the characteristics of this particular development, its location, or the characteristics of its potential impact, which would justify a conclusion that it was likely to give rise to significant environmental effects. On the particular facts of this case, the reasoning, albeit brief, is not inadequate, bearing in mind the function of the screening opinion as described in Bateman.”
“79. If a screening opinion is inadequately reasoned in breach of regulation 4(7) a challenge to a decision by the Secretary of State would fall undersection 288(1)(b)(i) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and so a claimant would not have to demonstrate under section 288(5)(b) that his interests had been substantially prejudiced thereby. Nonetheless, matters going to the absence or presence of prejudice would be relevant to the issue of whether the court should exercise its discretion by quashing the decision (Mackman at paragraph 23). Although section 288 does not apply to the present type of challenge, I see no reason why as a matter of principle the approach should be any different in an application for judicial review against a screening opinion of a local planning authority. 80. In the Lea Valley Regional Park case Dove J identified at paragraph 71 two purposes of the obligation to give reasons: first, to enable a participant to understand why a negative screening opinion has been issued so that representations might be made to the Secretary of State in an attempt to persuade him to come to the opposite conclusion (e.g. regulation (4)(8) of the EIA Regulations), and second, so that a participant can see whether the screening opinion was tainted by a public law error and a legal challenge may be brought. Mr Maurici QC accepted that in the present case the first purpose was not engaged. … 82. …Mr. Maurici QC accepted that this challenge is based solely upon the second purpose of the obligation to give reasons, to which the principles laid down in Save Britain’s Heritage v. Number 1 Poultry Ltd[1991] 1 WLR 153 , 168 and South Bucks DC v. Porter (No. 2)[2004] 1 WLR 1953 apply. Thus, the burden lies on the Claimants to show that the shortcoming in the reasons stated “is of such a nature that it may well conceal” a public law error. It is for the Claimants “to satisfy the court that the lacuna in the stated reasons is such as to raise a substantial doubt as to whether the decision was based on relevant grounds and otherwise free from any flaw in the decision-making process which would afford a ground for quashing the decision” (see Save). Lord Brown summarised the position in South Bucks at [paragraph 36]. 83. Mr Maurici QC emphasises that the obligation in regulation 4(7) if the EIA Regulations is to give “clearly and precisely the full reasons” for the opinion and to do so in a written statement accompanying the opinion. But he does not deny that in relation to regulation 4(7) the Courts have continued to apply certain of the principles laid down in cases dealing with the earlier legislation. 84. Thus, in line with Save and Porter the principle remains that the level of detail required in a screening opinion depends upon the complexity, or otherwise, of the issues to be considered in the instant case, so that the test is whether the reasons given are adequate in relation to the particular application before the authority. Accordingly, in some cases it is acceptable for the reasoning to be brief (see Mackman at paragraphs 20 to 21). It is also necessary for the court to have in mind the legal context. The planning authority is not issuing a decision letter in a planning appeal which needs to resolve “the principal or important controversial issues”, but is issuing a screening opinion for the narrower purpose identified in Bateman and Mackman (see paragraph 66 above). 85. In judging the adequacy of stated reasons, for example whether it is likely that a particular factor not expressly mentioned in the reasons was disregarded, the context in which the screening opinion was prepared is relevant (Mackman at paragraph 10)…”
“59. …I have no doubt that we should exercise our discretion to refuse relief in this case. In para.52 of its judgment, the Court of Appeal summarised the factors which in its view entitled the authority to conclude that applying the appropriate tests, and taking into account the agreed mitigation measures, the proposal would not have significant effects on the SAC. That, admittedly, was in the context of its consideration whether the committee arrived at a “rational and reasonable conclusion”, rather than the exercise of discretion. However, there is nothing to suggest that the decision would have been different had the investigations and consultations over the preceding year taken place within the framework of the EIA Regulations. 60. This was not a case where the environmental issues were of particular complexity or novelty. There was only one issue of substance: how to achieve adequate hydrological separation between the activities on the site and the river. It is a striking feature of the process that each of the statutory agencies involved was at pains to form its own view of the effectiveness of the proposed measures, and that final agreement was only achieved after a number of revisions. It is also clear from the final report that the public were fully involved in the process and their views were taken into account. It is notable also that Mr Champion himself, having been given the opportunity to raise any specific points of concern not covered by Natural England before the final decision, was unable to do so. That remains the case. That is not to put the burden of proof on to him, but rather to highlight the absence of anything of substance to set against the mass of material going the other way. … 62. For the reasons given, I would dismiss the appeal…Although the proposal should have been subject to assessment under the EIA Regulations, that failure did not in the event prevent the fullest possible investigation of the proposal and the involvement of the public. There is no reason to think that a different process would have resulted in a different decision, and Mr Champion’s interests have not been prejudiced…”