Timing of Habitats Regulation Assessment in Multi-Stage Planning: Establishing Precedent in Wingfield v Canterbury City Council

Introduction

Wingfield, R (On the Application Of) v. Canterbury City Council ([2019] EWHC 1974 (Admin)) is a pivotal case adjudicated by the England and Wales High Court's Administrative Court on July 24, 2019. The case revolves around the procedural adherence of the Canterbury City Council in granting planning permissions for a substantial housing development at Hoplands Farm, Hersden, Kent. The claimant, a local resident, challenged the council's decision on the grounds that it failed to undertake a lawful Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) in compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The case delves into the intricacies of multi-stage planning consent procedures and the timing of environmental assessments within such frameworks.

Summary of the Judgment

The claimant filed a judicial review challenging the Canterbury City Council's approval of reserved matters related to the Hoplands Farm development. The core contention was that the council neglected to perform a lawful HRA prior to granting outline planning permission, thereby breaching EU law as encapsulated in the Habitats Regulations 2017. The council conceded to procedural errors but argued that rectifying the mistake by conducting the HRA at the reserved matters stage was lawful and sufficient. Mrs Justice Lang, presiding over the case, upheld the council's approach. She determined that the council's decision to perform the HRA during the reserved matters stage was permissible under both EU and domestic law, particularly given the multi-stage nature of the planning consent process. The judgment concluded that the claimant's arguments did not meet the stringent criteria for overturning the council's decisions, leading to the dismissal of the claim despite acknowledging procedural oversights.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases to contextualize and support its reasoning:

Case C-323/17 People Over Wind v Coillte Teoranta: This CJEU ruling clarified that mitigation measures should not influence the screening stage of environmental assessments, but can be considered during the appropriate assessment phase.
Case C-127/02 Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee (Waddenzee): Provided guidelines on the threshold for significant effects under the Habitats Directive.
Case C-258/11 Sweetman v An Bord Pleanála: Outlined the two-stage assessment process required by the Habitats Directive.
R (Champion) v North Norfolk DC: Emphasized that the appropriate assessment must be proportionate and based on the authority's judgment.
R (Barker) v Bromley London Borough Council: Highlighted that in multi-stage consent processes, assessments might need to occur at later stages if initial assessments were inadequate.
Other supportive cases include Cooper v AG and No Adastral New Town Limited v Suffolk Coastal DC.

These precedents collectively informed the court's understanding of the appropriate timing and execution of HRAs within multi-stage planning processes, reinforcing the principle that remedial assessments at later stages can suffice under specific circumstances.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the interpretation and application of the Habitats Regulations 2017, particularly Regulation 63 concerning HRAs. The heart of the matter was whether the failure to conduct an HRA before the grant of outline planning permission invalidated the entire planning consent or whether remedial action at a subsequent stage was sufficient.

Mrs Justice Lang reasoned that under UK domestic law, specifically Regulation 70(3) of the Habitats Regulations 2017, an authority is mandated to conduct an appropriate assessment before granting outline planning permission if the criteria in Regulation 63 are met. However, due to the multi-stage planning process inherent in UK planning law, if the need for an assessment is only identified in later stages, conducting the HRA at the reserved matters stage is lawful and can remedy earlier procedural oversights.

The judgment highlighted that the council acted within its discretion by conducting the HRA at the reserved matters stage, especially after the CJEU's "People Over Wind" decision realigned domestic practices with EU law. The court dismissed the claimant's arguments by asserting that the council's corrective measures were proportionate and effective, thereby maintaining legal certainty and minimizing disruption.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future planning consents, especially in multi-stage processes. It establishes a clear precedent that:

Authorities can rectify procedural errors in environmental assessments by conducting appropriate assessments at later stages, provided such actions align with legal requirements and are proportionate.
The strict application of time limits for judicial reviews does not mandate the nullification of planning permissions if remedial actions are taken within a reasonable framework.
Multi-stage planning processes in the UK can incorporate flexibility in the timing of HRAs, ensuring that projects can proceed without undue disruption while maintaining environmental protections.

Consequently, local planning authorities may have increased confidence in addressing past procedural oversights without the necessity of retracting previously granted permissions, provided they adhere to the established legal frameworks.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA)

An HRA is an evaluation required under the Habitats Regulations 2017 to assess the potential impacts of a proposed plan or project on protected European sites, such as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs). The assessment ensures that any development does not adversely affect the integrity of these sites.

Multi-Stage Planning Consent

In the UK, planning consent for significant developments often occurs in stages. Initially, outline planning permission is granted, outlining the general nature of the development. Detailed aspects, such as layout and design, are addressed in subsequent stages known as reserved matters. This phased approach allows for adjustments based on further information or assessments.

Wednesbury Rationality

A standard of judicial review used to assess whether a decision made by a public authority is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider imposing it. It is a deferential standard, giving considerable leeway to administrative decisions.

Community Law Breaches and Nullification

When a public authority breaches EU law, Member States are obligated to nullify the unlawful consequences of such breaches. However, this does not automatically render actions null; instead, the national courts must determine appropriate remedies within their legal frameworks.

Conclusion

The Wingfield v Canterbury City Council judgment serves as a critical reference point for understanding the application and timing of Habitats Regulation Assessments within multi-stage planning consents in the UK. It underscores the judiciary's role in balancing procedural adherence with practical remedial measures, ensuring environmental protections are maintained without stifling developmental progress unnecessarily.

Key takeaways include the acceptance of remedial HRAs conducted at later stages in multi-step planning processes and the reaffirmation of the Wednesbury rationality standard in judicial reviews of administrative decisions. The judgment promotes legal certainty and flexibility, allowing for corrective actions that align with both domestic and EU environmental directives.

As environmental regulations continue to evolve, this case exemplifies how courts interpret and apply legal principles to maintain ecological integrity while accommodating lawful development. Stakeholders in future planning applications must heed the procedural lessons from this ruling to ensure compliance and mitigate potential legal challenges.