Case law >> An LPA's role in the Habitats Directive
- Local government ,
Jen Hawkins and George Hobson, from LexisPSL, detail a High Court decision that clarifies the role of local planning authorities in applying the Habitats Directive
The High Court recently dismissed two claims for a judicial review of the decision to grant planning permission for an energy-from-waste (EfW) facility at Calvert. The main claim concerned compliance with the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), as the proposed works would affect the habitat of three European protected species (EPS) – the common pipistrelle bat, the brown long-eared bat and the great crested newt.
In Prideaux v Buckinghamshire County Council  EWHC 1054, the claimant argued that the council had failed to comply with the requirements of the Directive in considering the likely effects of the development on EPS. The Directive requires member states to establish a system of strict protection for EPS.
However, they can derogate from these requirements in some circumstances. In England and Wales, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 – which implement the Directive – impose different duties on Natural England and local planning authorities (LPAs).
Natural England is responsible for determining whether there is a breach of the Directive and whether a licence should be granted. The extent of the duty imposed on an LPA was clarified by the Supreme Court in Morge v Hampshire County Council  All ER 744. If a proposed development is found acceptable when judged on its planning merits and is likely to be licensed, an LPA should normally grant planning permission.
In Prideaux, the High Court applied the decision in Morge. The council had discharged its duty by satisfying itself that the necessary derogations were likely to be licensed.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published a new 'Green Claims Code' to ensure businesses are not misleading consumers about their environmental credentials.
Over two million hectares of Brazilian rainforest could be legally converted to supply the UK with soy under a new anti-deforestation law proposed by the government, the WWF has found.
In Elliott-Smith v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the claimant applied for judicial review of the legality of the defendants’ joint decision to create the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) as a substitute for UK participation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).
In R. (on the application of Hudson) v Windsor and Maidenhead RBC, the appellant appealed against a decision to uphold the local authority’s grant of planning permission for the construction of a holiday village at the Legoland Windsor Resort.