Wildlife charity loses High Court battle over impact of development on bats

A wildlife charity has failed in a High Court challenge to a district council’s grant of outline planning permission for a 230-home development over the impact of the proposed scheme on a rare type of bat.

The case of Devon Wildlife Trust, R (On the Application Of) v Teignbridge District Council [2015] EWHC 2159 (Admin) related to the local authority’s grant of permission for the development – including 2,500 sq m of employment space – at land at Station Hill in Chudleigh, Devon.

The Devon Wildlife Trust objected to the planning application for the site because of the adverse impact of the proposed development on the nearby South Hams Special Area of Conversation (SAC), which is recognised under the Habitats Directive as an area of recognised nature conservation importance at a European level for the protection of the Greater Horseshoe Bat.

The claimant charity was concerned that the development would interfere with vital flyways and foraging areas for the bat, which is one of Britain’s largest and rarest.

It put forward a number of grounds for its claim:

• The council had failed properly to determine whether the proposed development would or would not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC, and thus had failed to comply with the Habitats Directive and Regulations.

• Contrary to regulation 61(4) of the Habitats Regulations, the council had failed to consider the appropriateness or otherwise of consulting the general public on the Habitats Directive Appropriate Assessment, and in particular consulting the claimant on the GHB mitigation measures proposed;
• 
Contrary to the European Council Directive 2011/92/EU ("the EIA Directive"), as implemented by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (SI 2011 No 1824) ("the EIA Regulations"), the council had failed to undertake and publish an EIA screening opinion prior to granting planning permission;
• Contrary to the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-33, prior to granting planning permission, the council had failed to require a Strategic GHB Mitigation Plan and/or a Chudleigh settlement-wide bespoke GHB mitigation plan.

Mr Justice Hickinbottom allowed the substantive application for judicial review in relation to the EIA screening opinion and declared that Teignbridge breached the EIA regulations in not adopting and publishing such an opinion as required by those regulations.

However, he refused to quash the decision to grant outline planning permission, saying – amongst other things – that such a move would have inevitably given rise to delay in the development proceeding, “in circumstances in which it is inevitable that it will proceed”.

The judge gave permission to proceed on one other ground (the failure to determine the effect on the integrity of the SAC) but refused the substantive application for judicial review.

Mr Justice Hickinbottom refused permission on the other grounds.