A 1992 EC Directive requires there to be a system of strict protection of European Protected Species (EPS), such as bats, newts and doormice. That Directive is implemented in the UK by the Habitats Regs 1994. Needless to say, local planning authorities must have regard to those regs when exercising their planning functions.

Reported cases on bats are relatively rare, and thus there was interest in a recent decision which examined how LAs should implement the EU Directive (and the 1994 Regs). The case involved an application for judicial review following a planning permission for the demolition of a single building and its replacement with five luxury apartments. The existence of a small bat roost at the house was known at the time of the planning appeal but that was not a reason for the dismissal of the appeal. The developer had submitted a bat survey, and while the planning officer’s report noted the existence of bats, it made no mention of the EU Directive or the 1994 Regs. Instead, the officer recommended that a planning condition be imposed, dealing with the mitigation of disturbance to the bats (ie the report proceeded on the basis that the scheme was acceptable, provided that mitigation was carried out). The High Court held that the planning officer should have specifically raised the duty on the LA to have regard for the provisions of the EU Directive. Furthermore, the court made it clear that the issue of engaging with the Directive went much further than simply noting the existence of the bats. Instead, a local planning authority is under a duty to consider the relevant provisions and whether one of the exceptions might apply (those exceptions being limited by the Directive ‘in the interest of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and the beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’). This exercise should be carried out by the planning authority before deciding on a planning application, and the duty could not be discharged by simply imposing a condition on the planning permission that a licence from Natural England be obtained. Thus, the planning permission was quashed.

It is fair to say that most LAs have taken a fairly relaxed view of EPS requirements on planning matters. However, LAs will now have to be far more cautious – especially in light of the very limited exceptions to the EU Directive (as noted above). As such, this decision has been enthusiastically welcomed by many conservation groups. Woolley v Cheshire East BC [2009] EWHC 1227 (Admin) (access from at ). Source: DLA Piper.