Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, Regulation 6(1):

“A person who proposes to carry out development may request the relevant planning authority to state in writing its opinion as to whether the development is EIA development.”

This requirement applies to each new development application and cannot be satisfied by a screening opinion issued to another party under a previous proposal.

Even though an applicant may request an EIA screening opinion,
🔴 The planning authority still has a legal duty to screen development proposals if they may be EIA development — even without a formal request.

And crucially:

🔹 Each new development must be screened on its own merits —
🔹 A screening opinion issued to another party (even on the same site) does not carry forward to a new applicant or proposal.

⚖️ Key Case Law and Legal Precedent

Environmental Assessment: The Curious Case of the Recycled Screening Opinion

1. R (Bateman) v South Cambridgeshire DC [2011] EWCA Civ 157

  • A screening direction issued years earlier was relied on to avoid fresh EIA screening.
  • The Court of Appeal held that each new planning application must be independently assessed to determine if it amounts to EIA development.
  • You cannot rely on a past screening opinion if the new application is materially different.

✅ This supports your position: the 2014 screening opinion for Foreman Homes cannot be reused for Bargate’s 2024 application.

2. R (Loader) v Rother DC [2016] EWHC 2014 (Admin)

  • The court emphasised the importance of properly considering cumulative impacts.
  • A failure to consider other planned developments nearby made the EIA screening unlawful.

✅ Supports your Medstead argument: the saturation of housing and infrastructure strain must be reassessed with each application.

3. R (Squire) v Shropshire Council [2019] EWCA Civ 888

  • The council issued a screening opinion without properly assessing indirect and cumulative environmental effects.
  • The court quashed the decision — reaffirming that the local authority has a duty to fully assess the potential for significant effects, even if EIA is not formally requested.

✅ Reinforces that screening must be thorough, current, and site-specific.

4. Case C-290/03 Commission v Spain [2006] ECR I-1073 (European Court of Justice)

  • Even though the directive said a Member State “may” require screening, the ECJ held that failure to assess the likely significant effects of development was still a breach of EIA law.

🟩 Summary of Legal Position

  • “May request” in Regulation 6 does not reduce the planning authority’s obligation.
  • If the authority fails to assess whether the development might require EIA, that can be unlawful — especially if they rely on:
    • An outdated opinion,
    • A different developer’s scheme,
    • Or omit cumulative impacts.

📌 Bottom line: EHDC had a legal obligation to issue a new screening opinion for Bargate’s 2024 application, under the 2017 Regulations, and its failure to do so is highly questionable — possibly unlawful.