Amendments made: 218, in clause 36, page 22, line 12, leave out from beginning to “(rather” in line 13 and insert
“The urgency condition is that making an application under subsection (1)”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 219, provides that a case is urgent only if it is necessary to bring a judicial review, rather than proceeding by way of information notice, decision notice and environmental review, to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or to human health.
Amendment 219, in clause 36, page 22, line 14, after “35)” insert “is necessary”.
See Amendment 218.
Amendment 220, in clause 36, page 22, line 29, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
“(6) Subsection (6A) applies to proceedings (including any appeal) that—
(a) are in respect of an application for judicial review or a statutory review, and
(b) relate to an alleged failure by a public authority to comply with environmental law (however the allegation is framed in those proceedings).
(6A) If the OEP considers that the alleged failure, if it occurred, would be serious, it may apply to intervene in the proceedings (whether it considers that the public authority has, or has not, failed to comply with environmental law).”—
This amendment provides that the OEP may apply to intervene in a judicial or statutory review relating to an alleged failure by a public authority to comply with environmental law only if it considers that the failure, if it occurred, would be serious. If that test is satisfied, it may apply to intervene whether or not it considers that the authority has in fact failed to comply with environmental law.