Boggis & Anor v Natural England & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1061 (20 October 2009)

Boggis & Anor v Natural England & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1061 (20 October 2009)

The notification and confirmation of the SSSI did not constitute a 'plan or project' under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, and there was no credible evidence of a real risk of significant effect on the SPA requiring an appropriate assessment. English Nature's approach to conservation, allowing natural processes to proceed, was lawful. The Order quashing part of the SSSI confirmation was set aside.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 1061
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Peter Charles Boggis; Respondent/claimant: Easton Bavents Conservation; Appellant/defendant: Natural England; Interested Party: Waveney District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; Order of Blair J quashing part of the SSSI confirmation set aside.
Legal Topics
Site of Special Scientific Interest (sssi) Designation, Habitats Directive Article 6(3), Judicial Review, Conservation Vs. Preservation, Planning Permission and Coastal Defences
Environmental Law Administrative Law European Union Law Site of Special Scientific Interest (sssi) Designation Habitats Directive Article 6(3) Judicial Review Conservation Vs. Preservation Planning Permission and Coastal Defences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Charles Boggis

Respondent/claimant

Easton Bavents Conservation

Respondent/claimant

Natural England

Appellant/defendant

Waveney District Council

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal (judicial Review) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notification and confirmation of the SSSI was lawful under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Habitats Directive
  2. 2 Whether the SSSI notification constituted a 'plan or project' under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive
  3. 3 Whether English Nature's approach to conservation was correct in law

Ratio Decidendi

The notification and confirmation of the SSSI did not constitute a 'plan or project' under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, and there was no credible evidence of a real risk of significant effect on the SPA requiring an appropriate assessment. English Nature's approach to conservation, allowing natural processes to proceed, was lawful. The Order quashing part of the SSSI confirmation was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; Order of Blair J quashing part of the SSSI confirmation set aside.

Orders

  • Order of Blair J quashing the confirmation of part of the SSSI is set aside.