The appeal concerned the environmental effect of the erection of a bridge being part of a bypass. It was claimed that the area should have been designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA), and that if so it should be treated as such for planning purposes whether or not actually designated. There was at an early stage strong evidence that the site deserved protection, and little was known about why it had not been designated, but the excusion from being a protected area could have been challenged at the time, and the RSPB had withdrawn its own request that the site be listed.
Held: It was now far too late to challenge the 1994 decision not to list. Although the appeal failed, it served a useful purpose in exposing an apparent lack of transparency in the procedures for classifying SPAs.
Lord Justice Carnwath said: ‘The speeches [in Berkeley] need to be read in context. Lord Bingham emphasised the very narrow basis on which the case was argued in the House . . The developer was not represented in the House, and there was no reference to any evidence of actual prejudice to his or any other interests. Care is needed in applying the principles there decided to other circumstances, such as cases where as here there is clear evidence of a pressing public need for the scheme which is under attack.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Waller Lord Justice Carnwath Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 1170
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Bown, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport Admn 26-Mar-2003
The court rejected objections to a proposed bypass on the grounds that it would interfere with otter habitats, and an area which should be designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds.
Held: The Wild Birds Directive had not seperately . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte Royal Society for the Protection of Birds ECJ 11-Jul-1996
(Judgment) When designating an area of land as a wild bird special protection site, economic factors were to be excluded.
ECJ Article 4(1) or Article 4(2) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild . .
Cited – Commission v Germany (Order) (Judgment) ECJ 28-Feb-1991
Europa (Order) APPLICATION for interim measures to suspend temporarily the construction work being carried out under a coastal protection project in the area of the Leybucht, pursuant to a decision of 25 . .
Cited – Commission v Spain (Judgment) ECJ 2-Aug-1993
Europa Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds require Member States to preserve, maintain and re-establish the habitats of the said birds as such, because of their ecological . .
Cited – Commission v Netherlands (Judgment) ECJ 19-May-1998
ECJ The aim of the pre-litigation procedure provided for in Article 169 of the Treaty is to give the Member State concerned an opportunity to justify its position or, as the case may be, to comply of its own . .
Cited – Commission v France (Judgment) ECJ 18-Mar-1999
ECJ A Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive. . .
Cited – Commission v France C-374/98 ECJ 7-Dec-2000
Europa (Judgment) The inventory of areas which are of great importance for the conservation of wild birds, more commonly known under the acronym IBA (Inventory of Important Bird Areas in the European Community), . .
Cited – Berkeley v Secretary of State For The Environment and Others HL 11-May-2000
The claimant challenged the grant of planning permission for a new football ground for Fulham Football club, saying that an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been obtained, but was required.
Held: Where a planning application if . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Bown, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Transport Admn 26-Mar-2003
The court rejected objections to a proposed bypass on the grounds that it would interfere with otter habitats, and an area which should be designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds.
Held: The Wild Birds Directive had not seperately . .
Approved – Edwards, Regina (on the application of) v Environment Agency HL 16-Apr-2008
The applicants sought to challenge the grant of a permit by the defendant to a company to operate a cement works, saying that the environmental impact assessment was inadequate.
Held: The Agency had been justified in allowing the application . .
Cited – Walton v The Scottish Ministers SC 17-Oct-2012
The appellant, former chair of a road activist group, challenged certain roads orders saying that the respondent had not carried out the required environmental assessment. His claim was that the road had been adopted without the consultation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning, Environment
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184917
