Devon Wildlife Trust, R (On the Application Of) v Teignbridge District Council

Under the habitats regime, the central question is whether the competent authority can ascertain, on the available evidence, that a project will not adversely affect the integrity of a protected site. In a multi-stage consent process, mitigation need not be finally detailed before permission is granted if there is sufficient information to establish that it can be achieved in practice and no works can begin before the remaining safeguards are secured.

For EIA screening, the authority may take proposed mitigation into account, provided it considers the precautionary principle and the degree of uncertainty. A procedural failure to adopt and publish a screening opinion does not automatically require permission to be quashed where the breach caused no substantial prejudice and the outcome was inevitable. Public consultation under regulation 61(4) is discretionary.

The Claimant challenged the Council’s grant of outline planning permission for up to 230 dwellings and employment space near the South Hams Special Area of Conservation, which supported a population of greater horseshoe bats.

The challenge alleged failures under the Habitats Directive and Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, including inadequate assessment, consultation and mitigation. It also alleged breach of the EIA regime through failure to adopt and publish a screening opinion before permission was granted, and breach of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-33.

The central issues were whether the Council had lawfully assessed the protected site, whether public consultation was required, whether the EIA breach justified quashing the permission, and whether strategic or settlement-level mitigation plans were prerequisites to permission.

1. Habitats assessment. The habitats regime is principally concerned with outcome. Permission may be granted only where the authority has ascertained, in the light of the appropriate assessment, that the project will not adversely affect the integrity of the protected site. In a multi-stage process, it is unnecessary for every mitigation detail to be finally resolved before outline permission, provided the authority has sufficient information to be satisfied that the mitigation can be achieved in practice and that no works can begin before the necessary safeguards are secured.
2. The Planning Committee was entitled to delegate the finalisation of the ecological issues to officers, subject to Natural England withdrawing its objection and confirming that the agreed mitigation would avoid adverse effects. The information before the Committee was adequate and was not misleading. The Council was entitled to rely on the considered opinion of Natural England and its own biodiversity officer.
3. Regulation 61(4) does not impose a general duty to consult the public or to circulate the appropriate assessment. Whether public opinion should be obtained is a matter for the authority’s judgment. There was also no applicable common-law duty to consult. Any failure to consider consultation earlier was immaterial, and the Claimant identified no information that might have changed the assessment.
4. EIA screening. The authority must make a practical planning judgment whether the project, considered as a whole, is likely to have significant environmental effects. It may take proposed mitigation into account, but must consider the precautionary principle, the degree of uncertainty, and whether the mitigation’s effectiveness can reasonably be predicted. The Council breached the EIA Regulations by failing to adopt and publish a written screening opinion before granting permission.
5. That breach did not require the permission to be quashed. The court retained a discretion to withhold relief where the breach caused no substantial prejudice, the claimant had an effective opportunity to make representations, the outcome would inevitably have been the same, and quashing would produce significant public disbenefit. The appropriate relief was a declaration only.
6. The Local Plan required a site-specific bespoke greater horseshoe bat mitigation plan, not a strategic or settlement-level plan before permission. The site-specific requirement was satisfied. The claim otherwise failed: permission was refused on Ground 1, permission was refused on Ground 3, Ground 4 succeeded only to the extent of the declaration, and permission was refused on Ground 5.

This was a first-instance judicial review. The judgment itself refers to earlier litigation concerning the Local Plan, including [2014] EWHC 4166 (Admin) and the refusal of permission to appeal in [2015] EWCA Civ 608.