Introduction

The case of Sahota, R (On the Application Of) v Herefordshire Council ([2022] EWCA Civ 1640) examines critical issues surrounding the admissibility of ex post facto evidence in planning decision judicial reviews and the obligations under the Habitats Regulations 2017. Mr. David Sahota, the appellant, opposed the planning permission granted to Mr. John Morgan by Herefordshire Council for agricultural development in the upper Golden Valley, Herefordshire. The core issues revolve around whether the original judge erred in admitting the evidence of Mr. James Bisset, an ecology officer, and whether the planning committee was misled regarding the necessity of a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA).

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court initially dismissed Mr. Sahota's claim for judicial review, a decision that Mr. Sahota appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appellate court focused on two primary issues:

1. The admissibility of Mr. Bisset's evidence in elucidating the planning committee's decision.
2. The necessity of conducting an HRA under the Habitats Regulations prior to granting planning permission.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the admission of Mr. Bisset's evidence was appropriate and that the Respondent had complied with Regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations 2017. The court found no errors in the legal reasoning or the decision-making process of the planning committee.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases to underpin its reasoning:

• R (United Trade Action Group Ltd) v Transport for London [2021] EWCA Civ 1197 – Clarified principles on admissibility of ex post facto evidence.
• R (Mansell) v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314 – Established standards for evaluating planning officers' reports.
• R (Smyth) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWCA Civ 174 – Addressed standards of evidence for appropriate assessments under the Habitats Directive.
• R (Champion) v North Norfolk District Council [2015] UKSC 52 – Distinguished between Habitats Regulations and Environmental Impact Assessment regulations.

These precedents collectively informed the court's approach to evaluating the admissibility of evidence and adherence to statutory obligations under environmental regulations.

Legal Reasoning

The court adopted a deferential stance towards the planning committee's decision-making process, emphasizing the following principles:

• Admissibility of Evidence: The court recognized its limited role in interfering with admissibility decisions, affirming that ex post facto evidence like Mr. Bisset's can be admitted if it elucidates rather than fundamentally alters the decision-making record.
• Compliance with Habitats Regulations: The court reviewed whether the Respondent complied with Regulation 63, which mandates an appropriate assessment for projects likely to significantly affect European sites. It concluded that the Respondent acted within its duty by relying on Natural England's guidelines and Mr. Bisset's professional judgment.
• Deference to Expert Advice: The planning authority's reliance on expert ecological assessments, particularly those from Natural England, was deemed appropriate, provided there was no irrational departure from such advice.

The judgment underscored the necessity for courts to respect the expertise of local planning authorities and their officers, intervening only in cases of clear legal or procedural errors.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's limited role in reviewing local planning decisions, particularly concerning environmental assessments. Key impacts include:

• Clarification on Evidence Admissibility: Establishes that ex post facto evidence can be admitted in judicial reviews if it serves to clarify the decision-making process without altering the foundational reasons.
• Affirmation of Regulatory Compliance: Reiterates the importance of adherence to the Habitats Regulations, emphasizing that local authorities must conduct appropriate assessments based on established guidelines and expert advice.
• Strengthened Role of Expert Assessments: Validates the reliance on expert ecological opinions in planning decisions, provided they align with statutory requirements and are logically sound.

Future cases will likely reference this judgment when addressing similar issues of evidence admissibility and regulatory compliance in planning matters.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Ex Post Facto Evidence

Ex post facto evidence refers to information or documents introduced after the primary decision has been made. In judicial reviews, courts are cautious about admitting such evidence to prevent undermining the integrity of the decision-making process.

Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)

An HRA is a formal process required under the Habitats Regulations 2017 when a development project may significantly affect protected European sites, such as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). It involves evaluating potential impacts and determining necessary mitigation measures.

Appropriate Assessment

This is an evaluation mandated by Regulation 63 to assess whether a proposed plan or project is likely to have significant effects on a European site. It requires consultation with relevant conservation bodies and consideration of conservation objectives.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Sahota v Herefordshire Council reaffirms the judiciary's respect for local planning authorities' expertise and decision-making processes. By upholding the admissibility of Mr. Bisset's evidence and validating the Respondent's compliance with the Habitats Regulations, the court delineated clear boundaries for judicial intervention in planning matters. This judgment provides a robust framework for future cases, ensuring that environmental assessments are conducted rigorously while maintaining efficient and effective planning decision-making at the local level.