TIMOTHY CHARLES HARRIS v ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

TIMOTHY CHARLES HARRIS v ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

Permission to apply for judicial review is granted on ground 1 because it is arguable that the Environment Agency had a duty to proactively address risks to other sites within the Broads European sites under regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations. Ground 2 is refused as the EA's technical approach and reliance on expert advice from Natural England was rational and lawful.

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 Compliance, Water Abstraction, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (sssis), Conservation Objectives, Judicial Review Standards
Environmental Law Administrative Law EU Law Habitats Directive Compliance Water Abstraction Sites of Special Scientific Interest (sssis) Conservation Objectives Judicial Review Standards

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 4 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 breached its duty under regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations by limiting its investigation to three SSSIs and not addressing risks to other sites within Broads European sites
  2. 2 Whether the Environment Agency lawfully concluded that recommended actions would comply with conservation objectives and have no adverse effect on site integrity

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to apply for judicial review is granted on ground 1 because it is arguable that the Environment Agency had a duty to proactively address risks to other sites within the Broads European sites under regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations. Ground 2 is refused as the EA's technical approach and reliance on expert advice from Natural England was rational and lawful.

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.