Site of special scientific interest (SSSI) – Proposed development – Reservoirs – Environmental assessment finding grassland fungi on site – Whether defendant erring in law in designating site as SSSI – Application dismissed
The claimant company owned land containing reservoirs that were no longer in use. It therefore wanted to drain the site and to apply for planning permission for a housing development, for which an environmental assessment would be required. This assessment showed that parts of the site had been provisionally assessed as being of regional importance because various types of grassland fungi had been found to be growing there.
The defendant was responsible for deciding whether areas of land should be designated SSSIs. A site would qualify for such designation if it were of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna or geographical or physiological features. Under section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the defendant had to notify the local planning authority, any owner or occupier of the land and the secretary of state, that a site had been designated as an SSSI.
Supplementary reports and additional surveys confirmed that the presence of the grassland fungi meant that the site was at the upper end of regional importance. Accordingly, the defendant notified the claimant that its site was of special scientific interest. The claimant objected, but the notification was confirmed at a hearing.
The claimant applied to quash that decision. It contended, inter alia, that the decisions to notify and confirm the notification were flawed because the defendant had failed: (i) to have regard to the lack of sufficient identification of other, better sites; and (ii) properly to follow the guidelines of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Held: The application was dismissed.
On the evidence, the defendant had considered all the relevant material and had been entitled to conclude as it did. The decision was based upon the acceptance that the number of species of fungi found on the site justified the notification under section 28 of the 1981 Act. The issue was not whether it was the best site; the evidence before the defendant showed that the number of particular species found on the site made it an important area.
Although the defendant might be obliged to take reasonable steps to acquire any information necessary to enable it to make its decision, it was not obliged to exhaust every possible avenue of investigation. The defendant was required to do no more than was reasonable in the circumstances of the particular case. A decision would be quashed only if the court were satisfied that it had been taken in the absence of information without which no reasonable person could have reached that decision: R v Westminster City Council, ex parte Monahan [1989] 1 PLR 36 considered.
John Steel QC and Robert Palmer (instructed by Geldards LLP) appeared for the claimant; John Howell QC and Jane Collier (instructed by Browne Jacobson LLP) appeared for the defendant.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
