R (Boggis) v Natural England
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 October 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWCA Civ 1061 |
| Date | 20 October 2009 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Sullivan
The notification of a site of special scientific interest by English Nature was not a plan or project requiring an assessment of its conservation implications on any special protection area which it might affect.
The Court of Appeal so stated in a reserved judgment allowing the appeal of the defendant, Natural England, formerly English Nature, against the decision of Mr Justice BlairTLRUNK (The Times February 25, 2009; [2009] 3 All ER 879) who had held that the notification and confirmation of a site of special scientific interest made on June 28, 2006, under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, was a plan within the meaning of article 6.3 of Council Directive 92/43/EC (OJ July 22, 1992 L206/7), the Habitat Directive.
The first claimant, Peter Charles Boggis, and the second, a group called Easton Bavents Conservation, fearful for their properties on continuingly eroding cliff tops, constructed a sacrificial sea defence between the cliffs and the sea.
Natural England claimed that the sea defence compromised the scientific value of the site by impeding access to the cliff face. Waveney District Council joined as an interested party.
Mr Gregory Jones and Mr James Neill for the claimants; Mr John Howell, QC and Ms Jane Collier for Natural England; Mr Christopher Balogh for the council.
LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN said that a notification package under section 28 of the 1981 Act was most certainly not a plan for the purposes of article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive.
Since the notification of the site of special scientific interest did not amount to a plan or project for the purposes of 6.3, the issue of likelihood of significant effect on the special protection area did not arise.
A breach of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackwood's (Dean) Application
...evidence that there was a real, rather than a hypothetical, risk which should have been considered: R (Boggis) v Natural England [2010] PTSR 725, at [37]–[38]. To like effect, Sullivan J stated in R 26 (Hart DC) v Secretary of State [2008] EWHC 1204 (Admin), at [81]: “Merely expressing doub......
-
Buckinghamshire County Council and Others and Others v Secretary of State for Transport High Speed Two Ltd (Interested Party)
...have considerable influence on development decisions and, as a result, on the sites concerned." 222 In R (Boggis) v Natural England [2009] EWCA Civ 1061, [2010] PTSR 725, the Court of Appeal held that the notification of an SSSI did not constitute a plan for these purposes, although the e......
-
R (on the application of Langton) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
...the application of DLA Delivery Ltd.) v Lewes District Council [2017] EWCA Civ 58, [30], Lindblom LJ (with whom Lewison LJ agreed), Boggis v Natural England [2009] EWCA Civ 1061, [37], per Sullivan LJ (with whom Longmore and Mummery L.JJ agreed). 134 In light of the evidence Natural England......
-
Wealden District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others Natural England (Interested Party)
...information must produce credible evidence that there was a real as opposed to hypothetical risk that must have been considered: Boggis v. Natural England [2009] EWCA Civ 1061 at paragraph 37; viii) a decision-maker discharging its duties under the Habitats Directive and the Habitats Regul......