R (Harris) v Natural England [2026] EWHC 2488 (Admin)

The point in plain English: Natural England cannot postpone protective action indefinitely where reliable evidence shows a serious risk of pollution harming a designated wetland. At Catfield Fen, the High Court found that its response had fallen below the duties imposed by the Habitats Regulations.

Background: Catfield Fen in Norfolk

Catfield Fen is a wetland within the Ant Broads and Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest and the Broads Special Area of Conservation. Timothy Harris, who owns part of the fen, challenged Natural England’s response to suspected phosphate and nitrogen pollution. Rainwater carried pollutants from agricultural land towards Fenside, a road beside the fen. Drains cut from the road provided a route into the protected wetland. The regulator had been alerted to these concerns in 2021.

Natural England had carried out visits and investigations, produced an enforcement questionnaire in February 2024 and developed a pollution reduction plan. It accepted important elements of the potential risk and that the northern drainage network connected with the wider fen. The dispute was about whether that response met its legal duty to protect the site.

Regulation 9 and the precautionary principle

Lieven J considered regulation 9(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive. The duty is proactive, but does not necessarily require an immediate engineering solution whenever somebody reports a risk. Professional judgment matters, and reasonable investigation can itself be an appropriate first step. The court considered earlier habitats decisions, including the Supreme Court’s CG Fry judgment.

What the High Court actually decided

At paragraphs 82 to 85, the judge rejected the claimant’s more absolute argument that Natural England was already in breach simply because it had been informed of the risk and had not promptly eliminated it. The law allows a fact-sensitive period for investigation and deciding what should be done.

The second argument succeeded. At paragraphs 87 to 96, the judge examined the long delay before effective monitoring, the evidence of nutrient pollution, the known pathway through the drains and the absence of meaningful protective measures. Preventing more drains from being cut did not solve the problem posed by the existing drains. In the circumstances, continuing to take no substantive protective steps was outside the range of lawful responses.

At paragraph 97, Lieven J found a breach of regulation 9(1) and article 6(2). The court did not order a particular farmer to change land management or prescribe a drainage solution. It reserved any further orders for later submissions.

Practical implications

The relevance to planning extends beyond Norfolk. The effects of a proposal can travel through watercourses, drains and adjoining land. For a development near a protected wetland, identify the pollutant pathway and responsibilities for mitigation before assuming the site boundary confines its environmental effects. A regulator, meanwhile, must be able to explain why its investigations and proposed interventions are appropriate to the evidence and the passage of time.

This was a judicial review of Natural England’s protective response, not a planning appeal or an award of planning permission. It does not predetermine the habitats assessment of another project, nor does it dictate a single remedy for all protected sites.

Judgment and related reporting

Read the approved judgment, dated 9 October 2026, and our Catfield Fen news report for the practical background. Check for subsequent remedy orders before relying on the procedural status of this judgment.