R (Staunch Campaign Ltd) v North Northamptonshire Council [2026] EWHC 1962 (Admin)
Staunch is an important Planning Court judgment on Habitats Regulations Assessment and functionally linked land. It concerned a major warehousing development close to the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area.
The court dismissed the challenge. A key point is that functionally linked land outside an SPA does not automatically have the same legal status as land inside the protected site. Replacing lost functionally linked land with suitable habitat elsewhere can, on the facts, be mitigation rather than compensation.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2026] EWHC 1962 (Admin)
- Court
- High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division, Planning Court
- Judgment date
- 30th July 2026
- Judge
- Sir Peter Lane
- Case number
- AC-2025-LON-004708
The development site was treated as functionally linked land
The proposed 60-hectare warehousing development lay outside the SPA but only around 230 metres from it. Golden Plover and Lapwing, qualifying species for the SPA, use surrounding agricultural land for feeding and roosting.
Natural England took a precautionary approach and treated the development site as functionally linked land. That meant suitable alternative habitat had to be provided if the development went ahead.
The replacement habitat was secured at Lilford Hall
A 20-hectare area at the Lilford Hall Estate was identified for replacement functionally linked land. It was not already ideal habitat. The proposal was to manage and enhance it for Golden Plover and Lapwing through grazing, shallow pools, rush management, invertebrate habitat and long-term monitoring.
The measures were secured through a section 106 agreement for at least 80 years, with a detailed mitigation strategy to be approved before development commenced.
Replacement FLL was not automatically compensation
Staunch argued that creating habitat elsewhere was compensation rather than mitigation and therefore could not be taken into account at the appropriate-assessment stage.
Sir Peter Lane rejected that proposition.
The European cases relied upon by Staunch, including Briels and Grace, concerned actual loss of habitat within a protected European site. This case involved the replacement of functionally linked land outside the SPA with other functionally linked land outside the SPA.
Those situations are not legally identical.
Functionally linked land is protected through its effect on the SPA
The court considered the earlier RSPB authority on functionally linked land.
Loss or deterioration of FLL must be scrutinised because of the indirect effect it may have on the protected site. But that does not mean FLL itself becomes part of the SPA or acquires exactly the same legal status as the designated land.
There may be cases where harm to FLL would be so severe that it would affect the integrity of the SPA and could not be dealt with as ordinary mitigation. That was not the professional assessment here.
Natural England’s advice carried substantial weight
Natural England had not itself carried out a full site visit to the replacement land. Staunch said that undermined the assessment.
The court disagreed. Whether a physical visit is necessary is a matter of professional judgment. Natural England had provided criteria and advice, the developer’s ecologists had inspected the land, Place Services had reviewed the evidence, and Natural England ultimately concurred with the Appropriate Assessment subject to the mitigation being secured.
A competent authority is entitled to give significant weight to Natural England as the statutory nature-conservation body unless there is good reason not to do so.
The SPA SPD did not turn all off-site habitat creation into compensation
Staunch relied on wording in the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SPA Supplementary Planning Document stating that new habitat outside the SPA boundary is compensation rather than mitigation.
The court read that passage in context. It was addressing mitigation for physical loss or fragmentation within the SPA itself.
It did not establish a general rule that replacement of FLL outside the SPA must always be treated as compensation.
The in-combination and waste arguments also failed
The court rejected challenges concerning cumulative effects with the neighbouring Castle Manor Farm scheme and alleged waste burial near the replacement habitat.
There was one error in the earlier assessment concerning whether the Castle Manor scheme needed to be considered before permission had been granted, but it did not affect the result. Both schemes had mitigation intended to leave no residual effect capable of combining with the other.
Specialist evidence also did not support the claim that alleged waste activity would prevent the Lilford Hall land functioning as mitigation.
Read the full Staunch judgment
The approved Planning Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Related Planning Geek guidance
See our guide to Habitats Regulations Assessment and planning.
Staunch Case Law Page Updated: 9th September 2026