In R (Wyatt) v Fareham BC (2021) EWHC 1434 (Admin) Jay J dismissed 8 grounds for judicial review of the Council’s decision to grant outline planning permission for a housing development, notwithstanding advice to the contrary from Natural England on habitats grounds and in accordance with the precautionary principle. Applying an appropriate margin of appreciation, in an area which is technical and complex, the Judge was not persuaded, on a Wednesbury basis, that the assessment carried out for the purposes of the planning application was otherwise than sufficiently precautionary.

R (Cross) v Cornwall Council (2021);EWHC 1423 (/Admin) was a successful judicial review of a grant of planning permission for a proposed development in an Area of Outstanding National  Beauty. The Council had failed to provide adequate reasons. Fairness required a formulated statement of reasons at common law, even though the proposed development was only of one dwelling, because (para 76) :-

1. The site was in a highly sensitive cliff-top setting on the Heritage Coast and in the AONB;
2. The Committee departed from the Officers’ Report and the Development Plan;
3. The Officer Recommendation was that the development would give rise to unacceptable harm to the AONB; and
4. There was extensive public opposition to the development.

In Sefton MBC v SoS (2021) EWHC 1082 (;Admin) the Court interpreted paras 143 and 144 of the NPPF. Read together, they emphasised the seriousness of harm to the green belt. That is to ensure that the decision-maker has in mind the nature of the “very special circumstances” requirement before development is approved. They do not however mandate a mathematical exercise in relation to each element of harm. There is a single exercise of planning judgment to assess whether there are very special circumstances which justify the grant of planning permission notwithstanding the particular importance of the green belt.

In Fylde Coast Farms v Fylde BC (2021) UKSC 18 the Supreme Court considers administrative processes comprising a series of successive steps, seven in the case of the above. The challenge under Section 61N of TCPA 1990 was out of time.

There are protected species under Regulation 42 of and Schedule 2 to the Conservation of Habits and Species Regulations 2017. Under Regulation 43 it is an offence deliberately to disturb, damage or destroy a breeding site or resting place of any wild animal of such a species, unless there is a derogation licence. By Regulation 55(9) such a licence cannot be granted unless the licensing body is satisfied that there is no satisfactory alternative and that the action authorised will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status at their natural range. In Kier v Natural England (2021) EWHC 1059 ( Admin ) Holgate J said : (1) the word “ detrimental” is all of a piece with the precautionary principle : para 42; (2) the judgment required involves consideration not just of the impact of the activities to be authorised, but also the mitigation and compensation measures to be secured by the licence : ibid; (3) the Court affords an enhanced margin of appreciation to a judgment of a scientific expert deciding issues of the kind raised: para 43. Holgate J also summarised, at para 44, the principles determining when fresh and expert evidence may be received in proceedings for judicial review, at para 45, the approach which should be taken to the grant of an injunction, and, at para 46,:how Decision Letters of Planning Inspectors are to be read.

A Policy is not out of date simply because it is in a time expired development plan. Whether a Policy is out of date, and, if so, with what consequences, is a matter of planning judgment. So held in Peel Investments v SoS and Salford City Council (2020) EWCA Civ 1175.

In Rectory Homes v SoS for MHCLG and South Oxfordshire DC Holgate J sets out general principles of interpretation of planning policy at paras 43-45 and 79 and addresses the meaning of “ dwelling” at paras 46-78 and 80/81.

An item being on a listed building list is not conclusive of it being a “ building”. When considering what free standing items, such as garden objects or structures, qualify as a “ building” protected in the listed building context the relevant criteria are (1) size, (2) permanence, and (3) degree of physical attachment. So held by the Supreme Court in Dill v SoS for MHCLG (2020’ UKSC 20.

In Case C-254/19, Friends of the Irish Environment v Irish Planning Board, Advocate-General Kokott has on 30 April 2020 delivered her Opinion in relation to the extension of a development consent for the construction of a liquefied natural gas regasification terminal next to two Special Areas of Conservation. The consent was for 10 years. The works had not started. The extension would be for a further 5 years. The primary question was whether the extension was a plan or project within Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. Yes, says the A-G. Therefore it is subject to an appropriate assessment of the implications for wild flora and fauna.

R (Advearse) v Dorset Council (2020) EWHC 807 (Admin) concerned a major mixed development in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and close to a conservation area of historical interest with a listed building. Issues considered by Swift J included what an Officer’s Report addressing the NPPF Part 16 provisions should contain.