Community Against Dean & Anor, R (on the application of) v Shire Oak Quarries Ltd [2017] EWHC 74 (Admin) (25 January 2017)

Community Against Dean & Anor, R (on the application of) v Shire Oak Quarries Ltd [2017] EWHC 74 (Admin) (25 January 2017)

The Council lawfully exercised its discretion not to take immediate enforcement action regarding the unauthorised fence, having regard to the Habitats Directive as required, and acted proportionately by allowing a retrospective planning application with an Environmental Statement. There was no evidence of significant adverse impact on bats, and any alleged error was immaterial. The claim was unarguable.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 74 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Community Against Dean Super Quarry Limited; Defendant: Cornwall Council; Interested Party: Shire Oak Quarries Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission to Proceed (rolled Up Hearing)
Outcome
Permission to proceed refused
Legal Topics
Planning Enforcement Discretion, Habitats Directive Compliance, Environmental Impact Assessment, Protection of Species (bats), Retrospective Planning Permission
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Planning Enforcement Discretion Habitats Directive Compliance Environmental Impact Assessment Protection of Species (bats) Retrospective Planning Permission

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Community Against Dean Super Quarry Limited

Claimant

Cornwall Council

Defendant

Shire Oak Quarries Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission to Proceed (rolled Up Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Cornwall Council acted unlawfully by failing to have proper regard to the Habitats Directive when deciding not to take enforcement action against unauthorised development (fence) at Dean Quarry.

Ratio Decidendi

The Council lawfully exercised its discretion not to take immediate enforcement action regarding the unauthorised fence, having regard to the Habitats Directive as required, and acted proportionately by allowing a retrospective planning application with an Environmental Statement. There was no evidence of significant adverse impact on bats, and any alleged error was immaterial. The claim was unarguable.

Court Disposition

Permission to proceed refused