TIMOTHY CHARLES HARRIS & Anor v THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

TIMOTHY CHARLES HARRIS & Anor v THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

The Environment Agency breached article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive and regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations by failing to take appropriate steps to review the impact of water abstraction under permanent licences across the entire SAC, given flaws in the previous review and the existence of a generalised risk to protected habitats. The Agency's limitation of its investigation to three SSSIs was not justified, and its approach was irrational in the absence of an alternative mechanism to ensure compliance with article 6(2).

Parties
Claimant: Mr Timothy Charles Harris; Claimant: Mrs Angelika Harris; Defendant: The Environment Agency; Interested Party: Natural England
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Habitats Directive, Water Abstraction, Judicial Review, Precautionary Principle, Regulation 9(3), Article 6(2), Special Areas of Conservation, Review of Consents, Permanent Licences, Rationality Challenge
Environmental Law Administrative Law EU Law Habitats Directive Water Abstraction Judicial Review Precautionary Principle Regulation 9(3) +5 more

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Timothy Charles Harris

Claimant

Mrs Angelika Harris

Claimant

The Environment Agency

Defendant

Natural England

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Environment Agency breached article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive by limiting its investigation to three SSSIs.
  2. 2 Whether article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive is enforceable in domestic law post-Brexit.
  3. 3 Whether the Environment Agency acted irrationally in limiting its investigation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Environment Agency breached article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive and regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations by failing to take appropriate steps to review the impact of water abstraction under permanent licences across the entire SAC, given flaws in the previous review and the existence of a generalised risk to protected habitats. The Agency's limitation of its investigation to three SSSIs was not justified, and its approach was irrational in the absence of an alternative mechanism to ensure compliance with article 6(2).

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Declaration that the Environment Agency is in breach of article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive and regulation 9(3) of the Habitats Regulations.
  • Directions to be made regarding the form of relief after further submissions.