HH Judge Klein, sitting as a High Court Judge, has dismissed Lanchester Properties Limited’s claim for judicial review of a Forestry Commission (Commission) decision recorded in a letter of 4 March 2025 under the Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999. The Judgment is available here.

The Commission had given a negative screening opinion under regulation 6(4A) that Greencroft Woodland, a proposed 290-hectare afforestation project on mainly agricultural land near Lanchester and Consett, County Durham, was not a "relevant project" likely to have significant effects on the environment, so that its consent — which would have required a full environmental impact assessment (EIA) — was not needed (J/1). The project was proposed by the North East Community Forest and funded primarily by a Guernsey-regulated green fund (J/1).

The Claimant operates a large bottling plant north of the site, powered mainly by three on-site wind turbines, and objected because it feared the forest would increase wind turbulence, causing the turbines to shut down (J/3). However, permission to proceed on the wind turbulence ground was refused. At the substantive hearing the claim proceeded on the following grounds:

Grounds 1 and 2 were rationality challenges to the decision-maker's conclusions that the project was not likely to have a significant impact on landscape and cultural heritage respectively (J/39), presented at the hearing as a contention that the material before the woodland officer did not adequately address those impacts (J/42).

Ground 4 was a reasons challenge: that the decision letter and screening checklist document relied upon contained no intelligible or adequate reasons (J/43).

On rationality, the Judge applied R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2019] 1 WLR 1649 (J/45) and noted the warning in Kenyon v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] Env LR 8 that such challenges to screening opinions face an "uphill task" (J/46). Leading counsel for the claimant accepted during the hearing that the Commission had sufficient information to make the decision, which was fatal to the ground as presented (J/47). In any event, the decision-maker had the necessary information — which areas were environmentally sensitive, why, their degree of sensitivity, and the proposers' intentions including mitigation — from the documentation before him (J/49–50). The decision was also not unreasonable: any likely significant impact was capable of being designed out (J/53), sensitive areas had been removed, kept open or mitigated (J/55–58), and the Commission’s advisers had concluded the scheme was compliant with the UK Forestry Standard (J/59).

On reasons, the Judge accepted that the decision letter and the relevant checklist document, considered in isolation, contained no reasons (J/72). However, following R (Mellor) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Case C-75/08) [2010] Env LR 18, R (Bateman) v South Cambridgeshire DC [2011] EWCA Civ 157 and R (Birchall Gardens LLP) v Hertfordshire CC [2016] EWHC 2794 (Admin), the Court could look more widely and draw inferences (J/73). It was proper to infer that the decision-maker adopted the Commission’s advisers’ reasoned opinions (J/76–79), so the Claimant had sufficient information to see whether proper consideration had been given to the afforestation project’s environmental impact, and Ground 4 failed (J/80). In any event, the Claimant suffered no prejudice and relief would have been refused as a matter of discretion (J/81–82).

The claim is the second time in 2026 that domestic UK courts have been called upon to consider the lawfulness of EIA decisions made on large afforestation projects, following the decision of the Court of Session in Restore Nature Ltd v Scottish Forestry 2026 SLT 267 where a screening decision of Scottish Forestry relating to a 400-hectare woodland proposal in the Scottish borders was quashed.

Ned Westaway and Armin Solimani acted for the Forestry Commission, instructed by Mills & Reeve