Summary of Tribunal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant purchased a residential property ("the Site") on 7 October 2019, part of which lies within the Poole Bay Cliffs SSSI. Between about 16 July 2021 and 18 April 2023 unauthorised excavation and related building works were carried out at the Site, including the removal of soil containing geological features for which the SSSI is notified. The Appellant did not seek permission from the Respondent or planning permission from the local planning authority before commencing the works. The Respondent assessed the damage as permanent and irreversible. The Respondent (Natural England) issued a Variable Monetary Penalty (VMP) Final Notice dated 4 March 2025 for £8,812.07 (after deductions) for breaches of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, s28P(1) and s28P(6), and an Enforcement Costs Recovery Notice (ECRN) of the same date for £11,187.93. The Appellant appealed the VMP to the First-tier Tribunal on 28 March 2025. A final hearing was held by CVP on 2 December 2025; the Tribunal's decision was given in January 2026.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the VMP imposed by the Respondent was excessive or disproportionate in amount (quantum) in respect of breaches of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, s28P(1) and s28P(6).
2. Whether the ECRN and the enforcement costs claimed were excessive or unreasonable.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended he had been open and co-operative with the Respondent and the local planning authority.
• The combined penalty (VMP plus ECRN, total £20,000) was disproportionate and manifestly excessive.
• The Appellant sought mitigation based on the Site being "pre-disturbed", his voluntary halting of works in 2022, and his investment in ecological improvement.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent submitted the Appellant had been treated leniently and had no arguable ground for complaint.
• The Respondent relied on its Enforcement Guidance methodology in setting the VMP (deterrent component, aggravating multipliers, mitigations and deductions) and maintained the ECRN was reasonable in hours and rate claimed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal began from the statutory framework permitting civil sanctions under the Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) Order 2010 and the Respondent's published Enforcement Guidance. Treating the appeal as a rehearing, the Tribunal nevertheless afforded considerable weight to the Respondent's policy (see the precedent cited).

The Tribunal analysed the VMP calculation by reference to the Guidance's stages:

• Deterrent component: set in accordance with Guidance (see opinion for detail); the Tribunal found the VMP figure before deduction unassailable.
• Aggravating multipliers applied by the Respondent were examined under five heads. On blameworthiness the Tribunal upheld a multiplier of 1 (negligent), noting the Appellant was an experienced developer, knew which authorities to consult and had means to obtain professional advice.
• On attitude the Tribunal found the 1.5 multiplier appropriate because, although works were halted in 2022, the Appellant resumed works in 2023.
• On foreseeability/risk the Tribunal found the offences were plainly foreseeable given location, scale and nature of works and concluded the multiplier of 2 was not harsh.
• On mitigation the Tribunal accepted the Respondent's view that any modest mitigating factors were already reflected in the chosen aggravating multipliers and that no further reduction was warranted.
• On enforcement costs the Tribunal found the hours claimed were not excessive, the hourly rate (£110) was moderate, and, in any event, any reduction of the ECRN would have been offset by a corresponding adjustment to the VMP, leaving overall liability unchanged.

Overall the Tribunal concluded each challenged element of the VMP and the ECRN was permissibly assessed by the Respondent; the appeal lacked merit.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holding: The Tribunal unanimously dismissed the appeal. The VMP of £8,812.07 (after deduction of the ECRN) and the ECRN of £11,187.93 stand as issued by the Respondent.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Appellant remains liable for the amounts specified in the VMP and ECRN (total £20,000). The Tribunal did not establish any new legal principle; it applied the Respondent's Enforcement Guidance with due deference and found no error in the regulator's exercise of enforcement discretion.

Hearing panel: Judge Snelson; Judge Matthews; Judge Foley. Representative for the Respondent: Attorney Wyborn. Witnesses for the Respondent: Witness Goodman and Witness Wyman.