Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

Morge, R (on the application of) v Hampshire County Council.

País/Territorio
Reino Unido
Tipo de la corte
Nacional - corte superior
Fecha
Jun 10, 2010
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
Court of Appeal
Sede de la corte
London
Juez
Ward
Hughues
Patten.
Número de referencia
[2010] EWCA Civ 608
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Cuestiones jurídicas, Especies silvestres y ecosistemas
Palabra clave
Manejo de tierras Protección del hábitat Especies de plantas protegidas Especies animales protegidas Especies de peces protegidas Protecíon de las especies
Resumen
The present Court of Appeal’s decision has clarified the extent of protection afforded to European protected species. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a decision of a Deputy High Court Judge in which he refused to quash a decision of Hampshire County Council to grant planning permission for a Bus Rapid Transit scheme providing a dedicated bus link between Gosport and Fareham.The Claimant contended that the Council had not fulfilled its obligation to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive when granting planning permission. The Claimant contended that the protection afforded by Article 12(1)(b) of the Directive (deliberate disturbance of these species) was engaged as the proposed scheme would involve the destruction of foraging habitat and would introduce buses in area used by bats for crossing from a roost to foraging area. The Court of Appeal held that the loss of habitat does not itself fall within Article 12. The Court held that the occasional death of a bat should it be unable to take evasive action from large lighted buses will be a trivial disturbance not having a negative impact on the species as a whole so as to have any ecological importance. The Claimant contended that Article 12(1)(d) of the Directive was engaged as potential bat roosts would be destroyed and as bats arriving at a leaving an existing roost would be adversely affected by passing buses. The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments holding that Article 12(1)(d) requires strict protection of defined elements of the habitat namely actual breeding sites and resting places. The Court of Appeal also rejected the Claimant’s challenge to the Council’s decision that the proposal did not amount to EIA development for the purposes of the EIA Directive.