Bagshaw & Anor v Wyre Borough Council
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE STEWART
Areas of Law
- Environmental Law
- Administrative Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, the court determined that Wyre Borough Council did not adequately consider the impact on protected species, specifically bats, when granting planning permission for a housing development. The Claimants argued that the council failed in its statutory duty by overlooking nature conservation interests and providing insufficient reasoning. The court acknowledged these points and quashed the council's decision. The ruling emphasized the necessity for local planning authorities to ensure protected species are considered before granting any planning permission.
Judgment
Mr Justice Stewart:
Introduction
On 26 June 2013 Judge Pelling QC granted permission to the Claimants to bring judicial review in respect of the grant by Wyre Borough Council (“the Council”) of planning permission on 13 November 2012.
The applicant for the planning permission was Mrs E A Nickson, the First Interested Party. The Second Interested Party is the intended RSL for the development.
The site is land at Hall Lane, Great Eccleston, Preston. The Claimants are residents in the village. They objected to the application for planning permission. There is no issue about their standing in the case.
The permission is for the “the erection of 18 dwellings (comprising 4 two bed apartments, 9 two bed houses and 5 three bed houses) together with associated infrastructure…”
The Council had previously granted planning permission for the development in a decision that was issued on 25 April 2012. The Claimants made a claim for judicial review of that decision and it was revoked by the Council. The present application was made on 11 May 2012. On 3 October 2012 there was a resolution to grant planning permission which was then the subject of the decision notice on 13 November 2012.
The ground which I have to determine relates to protected species, namely bats, and is based on the Claimants’ contention:
That there has been a breach of the Council’s statutory duty.
That the LPA failed to take into account a material consideration, namely nature conservation interests.
The reasoning of the Council was inadequate in its treatment of the protected species issue and consultation responses.
Relevant Legislation and Policy
This is set out in full in the Appendix to this judgment. It comprises:
Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“ the 1990 Act ”).
Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“ the 2004 Act ”).
Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management) Procedure (England) Order 2010 (“the DMPO ”).
Regulation 9(3) of the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 (“the 2010 Regulations”).
Articles 12 and 16 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (“the Habitats Directive”). Article 12 of the 1992 Directive requires Member States to take requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for animal species listed (including pipistrelle bats) prohibiting “(b) deliberate disturbance of these species