Morge v Hampshire County Council

Morge v Hampshire County Council

The planning authority did not breach the Habitats Directive or Regulations, as detailed surveys and mitigation ensured no deliberate disturbance or destruction of bat breeding sites. Officer reports were fair and adequate summaries. The decision not to treat the proposal as EIA development was rational, based on...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Vivienne Morge; Defendant: Hampshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Habitats Directive Compliance, EIA Regulations, Protected Species, Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Badgers Act, Biodiversity, Officer Reports, Mitigation Measures
Environmental Law Administrative Law Planning Law Habitats Directive Compliance EIA Regulations Protected Species Planning Permission Judicial Review +4 more

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 8 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vivienne Morge

Claimant

Hampshire County Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of planning permission breached the EC Habitats Directive and Habitats Regulations regarding bats
  2. 2 Whether the planning authority erred in not treating the proposal as EIA development under the EIA Regulations 1999
  3. 3 Whether the authority failed to take account of harm to badgers under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992

Ratio Decidendi

The planning authority did not breach the Habitats Directive or Regulations, as detailed surveys and mitigation ensured no deliberate disturbance or destruction of bat breeding sites. Officer reports were fair and adequate summaries. The decision not to treat the proposal as EIA development was rational, based on sufficient information and proper consideration of environmental impacts, including protected species and cumulative effects. No error of law or irrationality was found.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed