header-logo header-logo

Bats at risk from HS2

28 April 2021
Issue: 7930 / Categories: Legal News , Environment , Animal welfare , Public
printer mail-detail
Environmental protesters have lost their legal case to protect rare barbastelle bats roosting in the path of the High Speed Two (HS2) rail link.

The High Court this week overturned an injunction against tree-felling in Jones Hill Wood, Buckinghamshire, in R (on the application of Keir) v Natural England [2021] EWHC 1059 (Admin).

The proposed construction work required 19 trees to be felled. The bats are ‘European protected species’ under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

Ecologist Mark Keir challenged Natural England’s decision to grant a licence, arguing Natural England had erred in law and that the proposed alternatives of bat boxes while allowing the HS2 line to run through the woods left the bats at risk.

Natural England countered that it believed the bat breeding site would be safe and pointed out that barbastelles may use several maternity roosts for their pups, each for a few days at a time.

Mr Justice Holgate noted that barbastelles are extremely rare―the population is estimated to be as low as 5,000.

In his judgment, he considered how the decision-maker must weigh up risk, stating ‘levels of confidence, or likelihood, or risk, may be judged to be acceptable if the decision-maker does not consider that there is a reasonable scientific doubt about whether an action authorised by a licence would be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of a species at a "favourable conservation status in their natural range".

‘On the other hand… an expression of likelihood, such as the balance of probabilities, should not be substituted as a decision-making test for the "absence of reasonable scientific doubt" required by the precautionary principle’.

He said he attached ‘considerable weight’ to the public interest of continuing the HS2 project.

Discharging the injunction, Holgate J said: ‘Even if it were to be arguable that Natural England has made an error of law in one or more of the respects alleged, I am not persuaded that the injunction is necessary to avoid that risk’.
Issue: 7930 / Categories: Legal News , Environment , Animal welfare , Public
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll