Harris & Anor v Environment Agency [2022] EWHC 508 (Admin) (10 March 2022)

Harris & Anor v Environment Agency [2022] EWHC 508 (Admin) (10 March 2022)

Permission to apply for judicial review is granted on ground 1 because it is arguable that the Environment Agency, once aware of risks to other sites within the protected area, had an obligation to proactively address those risks under regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations. Permission is refused on ground 2...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 508 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Timothy Charles Harris; Claimant: Angelika Harris; Defendant: Environment Agency; Interested Party: Natural England
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Permission Application (renewed)
Outcome
Permission to apply for judicial review granted on ground 1, refused on ground 2.
Legal Topics
Habitats Directive, Water Abstraction, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Judicial Review, Conservation Objectives
Environmental Law Administrative Law EU Law Habitats Directive Water Abstraction Sites of Special Scientific Interest Judicial Review Conservation Objectives

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Charles Harris

Claimant

Angelika Harris

Claimant

Environment Agency

Defendant

Natural England

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission Application (renewed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Environment Agency was required to consider the impact of water abstraction on sites beyond the three SSSIs identified in the RSA Report under the Habitats Directive and Habitats Regulations.
  2. 2 Whether the Environment Agency lawfully concluded that its recommended actions would comply with conservation objectives and have no adverse effect on the integrity of the three SSSIs.

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to apply for judicial review is granted on ground 1 because it is arguable that the Environment Agency, once aware of risks to other sites within the protected area, had an obligation to proactively address those risks under regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations. Permission is refused on ground 2 because the Agency's selection of flow standards and reliance on Natural England's advice was a matter of expert judgment and not irrational or unlawful.

Court Disposition

Permission to apply for judicial review granted on ground 1, refused on ground 2.

Orders

  • Permission to apply for judicial review granted on ground 1.
  • Permission refused on ground 2.