✅ 1. Refusal or Retrospective Screening
If it becomes clear that a developer intentionally split a site to avoid triggering EIA:
- The LPA can refuse subsequent applications on environmental grounds
- The Secretary of State can direct that EIA is required under Regulation 5(7)
👉 This doesn’t punish the developer directly, but it prevents the avoidance from succeeding.
✅ 2. Judicial Review (JR) – Indirect Legal Exposure
While JR is aimed at the LPA, not the developer, it can still:
- Invalidate planning permission granted based on flawed screening
- Delay the developer’s project
- Force a full EIA and resubmission, often with public backlash and added cost
👉 A developer who is seen to have manipulated the process can lose time, money, and reputation.
✅ 3. Environmental offences under broader law
In extreme cases, a developer could fall foul of:
- The Environmental Protection Act 1990, if harm is caused and concealed
- Misrepresentation in planning documents (can lead to enforcement action or judicial consequences)
⚠️ But this would usually require:
- Intentional deceit (e.g. knowingly misleading the LPA)
- Evidence of environmental harm or risk concealed by phasing
✅ 4. Challenge via Secretary of State (Call-in powers or EIA direction)
Under Regulation 5(7) and Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Secretary of State can:
- Intervene and require an EIA for what appears to be a fragmented or disguised larger development
- This can be triggered by public or councillor pressure
🧠 Summary:
| Legal Tool | Who It Targets | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Review | LPA (indirectly affects developer) | Invalidates permission |
| Reg. 5(7) EIA Direction | Developer/project | Forces full EIA |
| Enforcement / refusal | Developer | Blocks or delays application |
| Secretary of State call-in | Both | Suspends and reopens application |
📌 Final Thought:
While developers aren’t prosecuted criminally for salami-slicing, their schemes can be legally derailed if challenged correctly. What matters most is exposing the pattern — which your case does effectively