Boggis & Anor, R (on the application of) v Natural England & Anor

Boggis & Anor, R (on the application of) v Natural England & Anor

The notification and confirmation of the SSSI as it applied to the disputed area at Easton Bavents was not ultra vires; English Nature could lawfully notify and confirm the SSSI for the reasons given, and conservation in this context includes allowing natural processes. However, the notification and confirmation of...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Peter Charles Boggis; Claimant: Easton Bavents Conservation; Defendant: Natural England; Interested Party: Waveney District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Partially allowed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Ultra Vires, Habitats Directive, Sites of Special Scientific Interest (sssi), Environmental Assessment, Nature Conservation, Statutory Interpretation
Environmental Law Administrative Law European Union Law Judicial Review Ultra Vires Habitats Directive Sites of Special Scientific Interest (sssi) Environmental Assessment +2 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Charles Boggis

Claimant

Easton Bavents Conservation

Claimant

Natural England

Defendant

Waveney District Council

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether English Nature acted ultra vires in designating land as SSSI based on future, not current, scientific interest (Ground A)
  2. 2 Whether English Nature was required to undertake an appropriate assessment under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive before confirming the SSSI (Ground G)

Ratio Decidendi

The notification and confirmation of the SSSI as it applied to the disputed area at Easton Bavents was not ultra vires; English Nature could lawfully notify and confirm the SSSI for the reasons given, and conservation in this context includes allowing natural processes. However, the notification and confirmation of the SSSI, insofar as it included a formal statement of intended future action regarding the sea defences, constituted a 'plan' under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. As the risk of significant effect on the SPA could not be objectively excluded and no appropriate assessment was carried out, the decision was unlawful to that extent.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed

Orders

  • The claim fails on Ground A (ultra vires/conservation).
  • The claim succeeds on Ground G (Habitats Directive) to the extent that the notification and confirmation of the SSSI was unlawful as it applied to the area on the seaward side of the Easton Bavents cliffs where the sea defences are situated, and the land behind the cliffs.