In June last year the Woolley case (Woolley,R vs Cheshire East Borough Council) clarified the role that Local Planning Authorities must take when considering planning applications that may affect European Protected Species (EPS).

In summary, the High Court found that LPA’s need to have full regard to the Habitats Regulations in their decision making process. Anything less than that would constitute a breach of Regulation 3 (4) of the Habitats Regulations 1994. The implications are complex but in essence when dealing with EPS the LPA will have to consider whether the project meets the tests of ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’ and whether there is ‘no satisfactory alternative’. The precise meaning of those two phrases is still under debate.

Also of relevance is Mr Justice Jackson's Report, published January 2010 into litigation costs. (to read it click here). The 700 page report introduces the notion of “qualified one-way costs shifting” which means that Judicial Review litigants should not normally be faced with paying the costs of the defendant even when they loose, raising the potential that many more Mr Woolleys might be tempted to instigate the judicial review process.