Boggis & Anor v Natural England & Anor

Boggis & Anor v Natural England & Anor

The notification and confirmation of the SSSI was lawful. The process of exposure is part of the geological feature of interest, conservation does not equate to preservation, and the SSSI notification/confirmation is not a 'plan or project' under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. There was no credible evidence of a real risk to the SPA requiring an appropriate assessment. The order quashing part of the SSSI confirmation was set aside.

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 (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; order quashing SSSI confirmation set aside.
Legal Topics
Site of Special Scientific Interest (sssi) Designation, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Habitats Directive (council Directive 92/43/eec), Judicial Review, Conservation Vs. Preservation, Planning Permission and Coastal Defences
Environmental Law Administrative Law European Union Law Site of Special Scientific Interest (sssi) Designation Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Habitats Directive (council Directive 92/43/eec) Judicial Review Conservation Vs. Preservation +1 more

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 8
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 (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From High Court (administrative Court)

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 process of exposure of the cliffs is a geological feature of special interest
  3. 3 Whether 'conservation' equates to 'preservation' under the relevant statutes

Ratio Decidendi

The notification and confirmation of the SSSI was lawful. The process of exposure is part of the geological feature of interest, conservation does not equate to preservation, and the SSSI notification/confirmation is not a 'plan or project' under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. There was no credible evidence of a real risk to the SPA requiring an appropriate assessment. The order quashing part of the SSSI confirmation was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; order quashing SSSI confirmation set aside.

Orders

  • Order of Blair J quashing part of the SSSI confirmation is set aside.
  • Respondents’ cross-appeal on Ground A is dismissed.