National Conservation Council v The Central Planning Authority and Cayman Property Investments LTD

¶ INTHEGRANDCOURTOFTHECAYMANISLANDS INTHECIVILDIVISION CAUSENO:G207OF2021 BETWEEN: THEQUEEN On the applicationof NATIONALCONSERVATIONCOUNCIL Applicant AND THECENTRALPLANNINGAUTHORITY Respondent AND CAYMANPROPERTYINVESTMENTSLTD Interested Party ## INOPENCOURT Appearances: Mr ChristopherButtler QC andKateMcClymontofNelsonsfor the Applicant MrIanPagetBrownQCandSamuel Jackson andSelina Tibbetsof Jackson LawfortheRespondent MrTom LoweQC andMrMichaelAlberga ofTraversThorpeAlbergafor theInterestedParty Before: Hon Mr Justice Alistair Walters,Actg. Date of Hearing: 14-15 June 2022 Draft circulated: 3August2022 Judgment Delivered:23August 2022 ## HEADNOTE Sections3and41of National ConservationAct.IntentionofParliamentwhenenactingNCA.PowerofNCCtodelegate itsfunctionsunders.41.PowerofNCCtodelegate thosefunctionstotheDirectorof theDepartmentofEnvironment. Extent towhichGovernment entitieshave anydiscretionunders.41(4)astowhethertoapply totheNCCprior totaking any action that may have an adverse effect on the environment.Meaning of "direct" in s.41(5). ## JUDGMENT ## Introduction

¶ [1] These proceedings relate to a dispute between the Applicant (the "NCC") and the Respondent (the "CPA") in relation to aspects of their respective statutory powers and roles.The question as to the extentofthosepowersandrolesarisesin circumstanceswhere the CPAis consideringan <!-- image --> <!-- image --> applicationforplanningpermissionwhich islikely to have an adverse effect on the environment, when theNCCbecomesinvolved in thatprocess andwhether theNCChas thepower throughthe Director (theDirector)of theDepartment of Environment (the"DOE")to impose conditions on thegrantof planningpermission orto direct theCPA torefusethe applicationforpermission.The issuesraised in this case apply not just to the CPA but all government entities.

¶ [2] This case has attracted much public interest and it is important to bear in mind that the Court is not beingasked toconsiderorreviewanyissuesordecisions thatrelatetotheenvironmentitself.As explained above,the case isverymuchfocused on legal issues.It is alsoimportant tobearin mind that the issues raised in this case apply not just as between theNCC and the CPA but as between theNCC and all Government entitieswhere similar environmentalissues arise.Therefore,the principles covered by thisjudgment are ofmoregeneral application than just to thefacts of this case.

¶ [3] TheInterestedPartyis the ownerofpropertysituated at thenorthern end of BoggySandsRoad (registered with the CaymanIslandsLand Registry asBlock 5BParcel 162)(the"Property").It is in the context of an application for planning permission in relation to the Property that was consideredbytheCPAinSeptember2021(the"Application)that this dispute arises.

¶ [4] The proceedings involve an application by the NCCfor an order quashing the decision of the CPA to grant planning permission in relation to the Property,notwithstanding the objection of the NCC.

¶ [5] During thecourse of thehearing,counsel fortheNCC and CPA made it clearthat thepartieswere not engaged in theseproceedings in an adversarial waybut ratherwere placing thevarious issues before the court in order that theymay beresolved,thus clarifying thelegal relationshipbetween the two bodies. ## Background to therole and function of theNCC and CPA - TheNCCwas established byvirtue of s.3oftheNational ConservationAct 2013(theNCA")and consistsof13votingmembers.Section3(9)oftheNCAsetsoutthefunctionsoftheNCC. - "(9)TheCouncil has thefollowingfunctions- - (a)subjecttothisLaw,managingandmakingrecommendationsontheuseof theFund; IDefined inparagraph 11 below. 2Save where otherwise stated,references to sections are to sections of theNCA. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal <!-- image --> - (b)promotingthebiologicaldiversityandtheconservation andsustainable useofnaturalresourcesintheIslands; - (c)co-ordinatingtheestablishmentandadoptionbythepublicandprivate sectorsofnationalpoliciesfortheconservationandsustainableuseof naturalresources,including- - (i)theuse ofwetlands andwetlandresources;and - (i)theexcavationof aggregateandfill materials; - (d)recommendingandmaintainingprotected areasandconservation areas andconserving,maintaining andrestoring their naturalresourcesin accordancewithPart3; - e) conserving,maintainingandrestoringpopulationsandcriticalhabitatsof protectedspeciesinaccordancewithPart4; - promotingthetrainingofprofessionalandvoluntarypersonnelinthefields ofresearch,managementandwardeningofprotectedareasandspeciesand theothernaturalresourcesof theIslands; - g promotingwiderunderstandingandawarenessofthesignificanceofthe ecologicalsystems oftheIslands,thebenefits ofconservingnatural resourcesandoftheprovisionsofthisLaw andtheConventions; - (h)publicisingtheestablishmentofprotectedareasandthedesignationof protected speciesandraisepublicawareness,through educational programmes andothermeans,of thesignificance andvalueofprotected areas andspecies andof thebenefitsthatmaybegainedfromthem; - (i) encouragingpublicinvolvement,particularlybylocalcommunities,inthe planningandmanagementofprotectedareasandtheconservationof protectedspecies; - G)promotingtheadoptionofguidelinesbyentitiesfortheintegrationof conservationissuesintotheirdecisionmakingprocessesandforthe achievementofthesustainableuseofnaturalresources; - (k）promotingdistrict,nationalandregionalinitiatives,includingco-operative enforcementmeasuresandmutualassistanceintheenforcementof national laws,inordertofurthertheobjectivesof theConventions; - whethercausednaturallyornot,thatpresentagraveandimminentdanger tobiologicaldiversityandencouraginginternationalco-operationto supplementsuch nationalplans; - (m)promoting national plans for the sustainable management,conservation andenhancement,as appropriate,ofsinks andreservoirsofgreenhouse gases;and - (n)carryingoutsuch otherfunctions and duties as arespecified under thisLaw andtheregulations. - (10)Incarrying out itspowers and duties the Council may,subjectto any directions oftheCabinet,enterintoagreementsandotherco-operativearrangementswith regionalagencies,interstateagencies,voluntaryorganisations andotherpersons forthepurposeof thisLaw and theConventions. - (11) Withoutprejudicetothegeneralityofsubsection(1o),arrangementspursuant to thesubsectionmayprovidefor— - (a)theregulation,promotionandco-ordinationofsurveysandresearch relatingtonaturalresources; - (b)theconservationofparticularspeciespursuant toArticlesIVandVof the MigratorySpecies Convention; <!-- image --> - (c)theestablishment andoperationofjointorregionalconservationplansor managementbodiesforprotectedspecies; - (d)thetakingofjointorharmonisedenforcementmeasuresinrespectofany lawsrelatingtoprotectedspeciesortheircriticalhabitats;and - (e)theestablishment ofcontingencyplans foremergencyresponsesto activitiesoreventsthatpresentormaypresentadangertobiological diversityintheWiderCaribbean. - (12) TheCouncil,subjectto any directions oftheCabinet,maymake orders and guidancenotes and issue directivesforthepurposeofgivingeffecttothe provisions ofthisLaw and such orders,guidancenotes and directives may include- - (a)criteriaforidentifyingendangeredorthreatenedspeciesorotherspecies needingprotectionunderthisLaw; - (b)criteria for evaluatingproposalsfor theestablishment andmanagement of protectedareasandforthemeasuresrequiredtoprotect andconserve protectedspeciesandtheircriticalhabitat; - (C criteriafortheapplicationfor,andgrantofmoniesfromtheFund; - (d)criteriafor thereview,assessment andreportingof activitiesfundedin wholeorinpartbymoniesfromtheFund; - (e) theformandcontentofapetitionundersection16(3); - proceduresfordeterminingthecircumstancesunderwhichpermitsand licencesmaybegranted underPart5; - g measuresgoverningthemethodsandconditionsunderwhichthecaptive breedingorartificialpropagationof protectedspeciesmaybeallowed; - (h)proceduresforregulatingandcontrollingwildpopulations andtheimport, introduction,possession,transportationandreleaseofalienorgenetically alteredspecimens; - (i)proceduresforconsultationby entitiespursuant tosection41(3);and thecarryingout ofenvironmentalimpact assessmentsundersection43. - (13) TheCouncilmay delegateanyofitsfunctions,otherthanthemakingofordersand theissuingofdirectives,totheDirectorortoanycommitteeorsub-committeeofits members." One of the main issues arising at the hearing was the extent to which s.3(13) permits the NCC to delegate itspowers to the Director.Much of the argument turned on the meaning of thewords "orders"3, "direction"4 and "directives"" which I will come back to in due course.

¶ [7] TheDoE is responsible for"promoting thebiological diversity and the conservation and sustainable useof natural resources in theIslands6.TheDirectorhas a statutory responsibility to administer and enforce theNCA'.Herstatutoryfunctions includeidentifyingprotected areas and 3Not defined in theNCA. 4Under section 2 NCA "means a directionmade by the Cabinet under this Law" 5Undersection2NCA"meansadirectivemadeby theCouncilunderthisLaw andincludes aninterimdirective under section 11(3)or 17(7)" 7 Section 6(1) NCA. 6 Section 3(9)(b) NCA. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal <!-- image --> areas of critical habitat and researching and monitoring impacts on the natural resources, habitats, species and populations of protected areas9.

¶ [8] Section3 and schedule 2 to theNCA provideforitscompositionasfollows: - "1.(l)TheCouncil shall consist of thefollowingvotingmembers- - (a)theDirectororhisnomineefromtheDepartmentof theEnvironment; - (b)theDeputyDirectorofResearchintheDepartmentoftheEnvironment; - (c)theDirectoroftheDepartmentofAgricultureorhisnomineefromthe DepartmentofAgriculture; - (d)theDirector of Planningor his nomineefrom theDepartment of Planning; - (e) )apersonnominatedbytheNationalTrustandappointedbytheCabinet;and - eightpersonsappointedbytheCabinet,atleastfourofwhomshallhave relevantscientificortechnicalexpertise."

¶ [9] Itseems that theintention of thelegislaturewastomake theDirector andmembers of theDOE an integral part of theNCC and its decision making process, albeit not a majority of the members given a vote under the NCA1o.

¶ [10] Pursuant to s.11 of the NCA the NCC has power to take protective measures by issuing directives. ## "Protectivemeasures - 11.(l)Amanagementplanmay contain directivesconsistentwiththeprovisionsof the planfortheprohibitionorregulation,includingmanagementandlicensing,of activitieswithintheprotectedarea. - (2） Without prejudicetothegeneralityof subsection(1),directivesmadeunder this sectionmay—— - (a)prohibit orregulatethe entry ofpersons,animals orvehicles; - (b)prohibitorregulatevesselssofar asmaybeconsistentwithrightsof passageandnavigationunderinternationallaw; - (）prohibit orregulateanyactivitythatislikely,individuallyorcumulatively, toharmoradverselyaffectaprotectedareaorthatisotherwisenot compatiblewith thepurposesforwhich a protected area was established; - (d)prohibitorregulatethedumpingordischargeofwasteorother substances; - (e)prohibitorregulatethetakingofspecimens; - prescribemeasurestoprotect,conserve andrestorenaturalprocesses and ecologicalsystemswithinaprotectedarea,includingtheprotectionof waterlenses,waterflow,seasonalwetlands,sinks,reservoirs,soiland subsoilintegrityandtheseabed; - (g）prescribemeasurestoprotect,conserve andrestorewildlifepopulations; - (h)prescribe thetypesof developmentthatwouldbecompatiblewith the purposesforwhichaprotectedareawasestablishedorprohibitor 8Section (2)(c) NCA. 10The question as to whether theNCC is subject to thePublic Authorities Act which prohibits civil servants on the boardsofpublic authoritiesfromvoting,as arguedbytheRespondent,is dealtwithlaterinthis judgment. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal 9 Section 6(2)(d) NCA. <!-- image --> regulateany development,constructionorbuilding,includingroads, publicworksorutilityservices,thatmightadverselyaffectaprotected area; - (i) prohibitorregulateanyarchaeologicalactivity,includingtheremoval, damageordisturbanceofanyobjectthatcouldbeconsideredan archaeologicalobject; - G prohibitorregulateanyactivityinvolvingtheexploration,exploitationor modificationofthesoil,subsoilintegrityortheseabed; - (k) imposefeesforentryintoortheuseofaprotectedarea orforanylicence orpermitforactivitiesinaprotectedarea;and - restrictingorpermittingspecifiedactivitieswithinaparticularzone. - (3)Untilsuchtime asamanagementplanhasbeen adoptedforaprotected area,the Councilmay,ontheadviceoftheDirector,issuesuchinterimdirectivesasthe Councilconsiderstobeurgentlyrequiredtoprotectthearea,includinganyof themeasures setout insubsection(2). - (4)TheCouncil shallreport themakingof aninterimdirectiveundersubsection(3) totheCabinetandthedirectiveshallceasetohaveeffectonthecommencement ofamanagementplanfortheprotectedareaconcernedoratsuchearliertime as theCouncilortheCabinetmay direct."

¶ [11] The specificpower that theNCC sought toexercise in this case throughdelegationto theDirector is that arising under s.41.Section41(1) states: "Generalobligations - 41.(1) provisions of thisLaw and shallensure thatits decisions,actions and undertakingsareconsistentwithanddonotjeopardisetheprotectionand conservationofaprotectedareaoranyprotectedspeciesoritscritical habitat asestablishedpursuant to thisLaw." The definitionof"entity"is"any body of thegovernment and includes the Cabinet,any ministry, portfolio,statutory authority,governmentcompanyor anyotherbodywhichexercises apublic function!This includes theCPA.Thedefinitionof"protected area"includesSevenMileBeach to which theProperty is immediately adjacent."[P]rotected species"means a species referred to in s.15which,in turnrefers toParts 1and 2ofSchedule 1 to theNCA.Part 1includesmarine mammals, marine turtles, corals, anemones and sponges.

¶ [12] In the case ofthe Application in relation to theProperty,there is no dispute that,byvirtue of s.41(1), the CPAhada statutoryduty toensure that itdidnotbreach theprovisionsoftheNCA. I1Section 2 of theNCA. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal ## 13. Section 41(2) provides as follows: "(2)Forthepurposesofsubsection(l) theCouncil shallformulate andissueguidance notestoentitiesontheirdutiesunderthisLaw,andanyactiontakeninfull accordancewithsuchguidanceshallbedeemedtobeincompliancewiththis Law."

¶ [14] The NCC has issued guidance to entities (Guidance").The Guidance,entitled:"National ConservationCouncil GuidanceNotestoGovernmentEntities-ComplyingwithSection41ofthe NationalConservationLaw,2013"includesthestatementthat: Inordertocomplywiththe[NCA] all government entitiesshall consult withthe[NCC]if theyaretakinganyaction,grantinganypermission,takinganydecisionorgivingor engaginginany undertakingwhichmatches anyof the following"trigger"conditions. "Location Triggers"are: - i) Activitiesoccurringonthecoast,ie.,within500feetlandwardofthehigh watermarkandactivitiesoccurringonlandparcelswithcanalfrontage

¶ [2] ii Activitiesoccurringseawardofthehighwatermark

¶ [3] ili) ConservationPlan)

¶ [4] iv) Activitiesinoradjacenttoaprotectedarea." ## 15. Section41(3)providesthat: "Everyentityshall,inaccordancewith anyguidancenotesissuedbytheCouncil,consult withtheCouncilandtakeintoaccount anyviewsoftheCouncilbeforetakingany action includingthegrant of anypermitor licenceand themakingof any decision orthegiving of anyundertakingorapproval thatwouldorwouldbelikelytohaveanadverseeffecton the environmentgenerallyoronanynaturalresource."

¶ [16] The position of the CPA is that s.7 of the Development and Planning Act (2021 Revision) ("DPA") requiresthatit..shall,to thegreatestpossibleextentconsistentwiththeperformance ofitsduties under thisAct,consultwithdepartments and agenciesof theGovernmenthaving dutiesorhaving aimsorobjectsrelated to thoseoftheAuthorityor Board.The CPA notifiesallrelevant Government departmentsof applicationsfor planningpermissionbyposting them onits online planningsystem andbysendingnoticeof theapplicationdirectlyto therelevantstatutory authorities.Thatapparentlyenablesentitiessuch astheNCCtoprovide commenton applications and the CPA regards this as discharging its statutory duty under s.41(3) NCA.

¶ [17] "Adverseeffect"is definedandmeans:"aneffect thatmay result in thephysical destruction or detrimentalalterationofaprotectedarea,aconservationarea,anareaofcriticalhabitatorthe 12Section2NCA. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal <!-- image --> <!-- image --> dissolvedorsuspendedmineralsorsolids,wastematerialsorothersubstancesatlevelsthatmay be harmful towildlife or the ecological or aestheticvalue of the area".

¶ [18] Section41(4)providesfurther that: EveryntityexceptCabinetinaccordancewithanyguidanceotesissuedbytheCouil andregulationsmadeunderthisLaw,shallapplyforandobtaintheapprovalofthe Council beforetakingany actionincluding thegrant of anypermit or licence and the makingofany decision or thegivingofany undertaking orapproval thatwould orwould belikelytohaveanadverseeffect,whetherdirectlyorindirectly,onaprotectedareaor onthecriticalhabitatofaprotectedspecies."

¶ [19] The NCC is empowered by s.41(5): "In the case of a proposed action to which subsection (4) applies,the Council may,havingregardtoallthematerialconsiderationsinthisLaw andregulationsmade underthisLaw- - (a)agreetotheproposed actionsubjecttosuchconditions asitconsidersreasonable,in whichcasetheoriginatingauthorityshall ensurethattheproposedactionismade subjecttosuchconditions;or - (b)if theCouncil considers that theadverse impactof theproposed action cannot be satisfactorilymitigatedbyconditions,theCouncilshallsodirecttheoriginating proposed action."

¶ [20] Section41(6) providesthat:"anyperson aggrievedby a decision of the Council under this section mayappealagainstittotheCabinetinaccordancewithsection39"

¶ [21] At various times during the course of thehearing,counsel reiterated the unique nature of theNCA. It appears that it is bespoke legislation draftedfor the Cayman Islands Government with no direct equivalent.MrPaget-Brown madereferencein hiswritten submissions topotential relevance of the Official Hansard Report in relation to thepassage of theNCA through Parliament and the interpretation of its provisions.After the hearing,I reviewed the Official Hansard Report of the 2013/14 sessionof the CaymanIslandsLegislativeAssembly(nowParliament)whichprovides a transcript of the second reading of theNational ConservationBill,2013(NCB")13.TheSecond Readingof theNCBwas moved by theHon. G.Wayne Pantonl4who explained that the NCB had gone throughvariousversions over the previous10years andhadbeenreviewed by three successive Governments and twopolitical partiesaswell asthelocal community.He explained someoftheenvironmentalbackgroundtotheNCBand thattheNCBsoughttoinsertconsideration fortheenvironmentinnationaldecisionmakingprocesses: 13Page389. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal 14 The thenMinister of Financial Services,Commerce and Environment,now the Premier. 15 Page 392. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal 16 Page 396. <!-- image --> ..by requiring all government agencies and entities to consult with the National ConservationCouncil beforemakinga decision,approvinganyplanortaking anyaction whichmayimpacttheenvironment.And,MadamSpeaker,whileIamonthatletmejust say quickly,thereisa"Gentleman'sAgreement"inplacetoday（andIwill probably mentionitfurtheron)throughwhichdecisionswhichpotentiallyhaveanimpactonthe environmentsuch asplanning decisions,forexample,where anyproposalsthat are receivedinrespectofthosebeforethedecisionsaremadewillbesenttotheDoE [DepartmentofEnvironment]forreview.It isall currently apart of theprocessbut there

¶ [22] He is recordedl6 as continuing to explain that s.41 of the NCB was intended to provide the legal underpinning to the obligation on all entities to consult on environmental issues before approving plansorprojectsandsays: "Section 41(3) mandates that thecurrentlevelofconsultation(inrelationtothis Gentleman'sAgreement)continues,andismadeconsistent,becauseinpracticetoday, MadamSpeaker,itisnotsomethingthatisdoneonaconsistentbasis.Itisveryoftendone butitseemsitisnotentirelyconsistent.Itshouldbeconsistent,andthisBillwillrequire thatitbedonecompletelyonaconsistentbasis. The advicewhichisgivenbytheNational ConservationCouncilinrelationtoproposals oractionswhichmaycauseharmtotheenvironmentmustbetakenintoaccountbythe entitywhichismakingthosedecisions.Butitisclearfrom thelanguagethatitisnonbinding.Theycantakeitintoaccount,theycandecideitisnotrelevant,ortheycandecide towhatdegreetheywant toconsiderit,but it isnotbinding. Inearlierdraftsof theBill,MadamSpeaker,itwasconsideredtobebinding.Thisisone of theareaswhereoverthelasttenyearswehavesignificantlywatereddownforlackof abetterexpression)thestrengthof theprovisionssothatatthispointthe advicethatis beinggiventoentitiesinrespectofdecisionswhichhaveapotentialimpactonthe environmentareeffectivelynon-binding.Thelawwillrequirethatittakesthatadviceinto accountonly;itdoesnotsaythatthatadviceshallbeparamount,shallprevailshallold theday,shall dictate thedecision.It doesnot say that at all.Itisessentiallynon-binding. Now,theonecaveat there,Madampeaker(again,thissrepeatingtheointthathasben madeafewtimesearlier),insection41(4)theCouncilcanbeaskedtogivethesameadvice if thatadvice,or thatproposal inrespect ofwhichitisgivingadvice,has animpact ora theseareareasthatwiththeassistanceofsignificantpublicconsultation,Cabinethas deemedit appropriatetoprotect them,todesignate them asprotected areasorcritical habitat areas.It is onlyin thatcasewhere theaction beingproposed has a potential negativeimpact oneither oneof thosetwoareas that theadvice of theCouncilisrequired tobefollowed. So,theCouncil canconsidersuchanactionorproposalandiftherearewaystomitigate theeffectsofthoseactionsonaprotectedareaoracriticalhabitat area,or,indeed,o eliminatethoseimpacts,thentheCouncilwillundoubtedlyprovideadvicetothateffect.If afterdueconsiderationthereisnopossibilityofmitigatingthenegativeeffects,or eliminatingthenegativeeffcts,thentheCouncilhastheabilitytosay,No,thatroposal can'tgoforwardasstructuredorasplanned.Itwould havetochangesothat theycould reconsiderittoseeifthereisanyotherwaythattheycouldmitigatethenegativeeffects. But again,MadamSpeaker,juststressing,thisiswheretheCouncilis actingasthe surrogateofCabinettoprotecttheareasthatCabinethassaidmustremainprotectedafter publicconsultation,publicinput.Protected areaswill always,byvirtueofthisBill,be Crownproperty.Itispossiblethatcriticalhabitatareascouldbeonprivateland, however." <!-- image -->

¶ [23] Much of the argument in this case is about the obligations that arise under s.41(3) and (4) and the extent to which the CPA might or might not have had tomake an application under s.41(4),which it did not doin this case.In my view,the intention of the legislature in relation to such an issue is clearlyrelevantwhenone considersthebespoke nature of thelegislation and the time and effort putin toensuringitsprecisewording andeffect.

¶ [24] The CPAis established under theDPA.The CPAhaspowertodelegatevarious statutoryfunctions to theDirector of Planning or their deputyl7.Pursuant tos.15: "15.(1)Subject tothissection andsection5(1),whereapplicationismadetotheAuthority foroutlineplanningorpermissiontodeveloplandorpermissionforaplannedarea development,theAuthoritymaygrantpermissioneitherunconditionallyorsubjecttosuch conditions asit thinksfit,ormayrefusepermission." ## Backgroundfacts - 25.Two affidavits were filed in the proceedings. One was sworn on 30 September 2021 by Gina Ebanks-PetrietheDirectorof theDoEsettingoutthebackground totheplanningapplications madeinrelation totheProperty.Theotherwas sworn on16December2021byHaroonPandohie the Director of Planning.The Applicant argued that MrPandohie's affidavit should not be relied onasitsoughttoexplain,aftertheevent,thedecisionoftheCPA.Itwasagreed bytheRespondent at the beginning of thehearing that the official record of its decision as set out in the minutes of the relevant meetingconstituted thebest evidenceof the groundsuponwhich its decisionwas taken and that noreferencewould bemade to therelevant paragraphsof MrPandohie's affidavit. - On 29 June 2009 a cabana building and a seawall were granted planning approval on theProperty andwere subsequentlyconstructed. 17Section5DPA. 18The Court of Appeal of England andWaleshas held that in the context of collective decision-making bodies,a publicbodyhas held thatin the context ofa collective decision-makingbodies,thepublicbodyisnotentitledtorely onpost-hocevidencewhichisinconsistentwith theofficialrecord,savein exceptional circumstancesforevidence whichisinconsistentwith theofficialrecord,saveinexceptionalcircumstancesR(Young)vOxford City Council [2003]JPL232andR(LannerParishCouncil)vCornwall Council[2013]EWCACiv1290. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal <!-- image -->

¶ [27] On17November2020,theInterested Party,as the owner of theProperty,met with theDOE to seekguidance on remedial work to theseawall.In a subsequentmemorandumdated16April 2021 theDOEstated: "The applicantmet with the[DOE] on17November 2020 todiscuss remediationworks to theseawall.Itwasagreedbyallthattheexistingstructureisfailingandhasloststructural integrity..TheDepartmentreiterateditspositionthattheseawallhasbeenbuilttooclose totheseaontheactivebeachandthattheDepartmentdoesnotsupportdevelopment positionsoclosetothesea.TheDepartment advisedthatinordertoattempttoreducethe negativeimpactsthattheseawallishaving,theapplicantcouldconsiderusingdesign techniquessuchasacurvedorsteppedseawalltohelpdissipatewaveenergyandthatthe squarestructureof theseawall isaparticularproblem."

¶ [28] On3December2020,theInterestedParty made an application to theCPAforthereplacement of the cabana with aresidentialbuilding and remedial works to the existing seawall,ignoring the DOE's suggestion to include a curved seawall.

¶ [29] On16April 2021 theDirectorsent thememorandum mentioned above tothe CPA.TheDOEraised concerns about coastal setbacks,theintegrity of the existing structure (in relation to which it concluded that itwouldbenegligenttograntapprovalfora dwelling onthepropertywithno comfortthat theproposed design willnot alsoresultin the same structurefailure asthe existing one),thevulnerability of theproposed development,theimpact of theseawall on the activebeach andconstructionimpacts.

¶ [30] Inrelation toconstructionimpactsit stated: "Due to theproximityof thestructures of thewater,theproposed engineeringworks and constructionoftheproposeddevelopmentwillhaveadverseimpactsontheMarine ProtectedArea.TheEngineeringReport[obtainedbytheInterestedParty]statesthat pumping andshoringwillberequired,andthereisnolocationprovidedfordewateringof sediment-ladenwater.The site is too small to facilitate this on site.Anypumping intothe MarineParkwillresultinsedimentationandturbidityimpacts.Inaddition,therateof pumpingislikelytobeveryhighgiven thedepthintothegroundwaterrequired for the additionalfoundation,theporosityofthesandandtheproximitytothesea. Whilethereiscurrentlyabeachatthesite,thereisnowayofensuringthebeachwill remainduringconstruction.Aerialphotographsofthesiteoveraperiodinexcessof50 yearsindicatesthatitishighlyprobablethatthebeach,andthereforethesetback,will shrinkbetweennowandtheconstructionperiod. Itisnotpossibletoconstructsuchalargedevelopmentonsuchasmallsitewithout deleteriousimpactsontheMarinePark,especiallygiventhenegativeimpactsexperience whentheseawallwasconstructed.Theinformationprovideddoesnotsatisfythe Departmentthattheproposeddevelopmentwouldnotresultinthedischargeofdissolved orsuspendedmineralsorsolids at levelsthatmaybeharmfultotheecologicaloraesthetic valueofthearea. <!-- image --> Sedimentationisoneofthebiggestpotentialsourcesofreefdegradationbyreducingthe amount of light availablefor photosynthesis and by increasingsediment load oncorals."

¶ [31] TheDirector concludedby directing theCPApursuant to s.41(5)(b)of theNCA torefuse that planning application.

¶ [32] The InterestedParty's applicationof 3December 2020was refused by the PlanningAuthority on 28April 2021.It its explanatoryletterof6May2021 the CPA advised theInterested Partythat the

¶ [33] replacementoftheexistingbuildingwithacabana andtoconstruct anewcurvedseawall(pursuant totheDOE's17November2020advice)onthelandwardsideoftheexistingseawallandthen remove the existing seawall.TheProperty's seawall,in danger of failing,required urgentremedial work.

¶ [34] By letter dated 24June2021(sent totheDepartment ofPlanningon1July2021 alongwith the Director'sfurther contemporaneousmemorandum),theSecretary of theNCCnotified theCPA of a purported delegation of the Council's authority to direct the CPA to refuse the planning permission.The letter provided:

¶ [5] "1）Thesubmissionforplanning approvalforacabana andremediationworktoaseawall onparcel5B162,aspresentedbytheDepartmentofEnvironment,wasconsideredby theNationalConservationCouncilat itspreparatoryworkgroupsessionof23June 2021.

¶ [6] Councilnotedavarietyoffactorsincluding,butnotlimitedto,

¶ [7] a.Thearchitect's submission to theDepartment of Planning;

¶ [8] b.The engineers report regarding the proposed seawall and cabana at 33Boggy SandRd,block5bparcel162; - C. The existingproblems at the site,stemmingfrom works previously receiving planningapproval,inheritedby the current owners; - d. Thepotentialimpactsofredevelopmentmethodsanddesignonthenearshore environment; - e. Theeventualcollapseoftheexistingstructureandtheimpactofthatonthe nearshoreenvironment; - f. TheadjacentMarineReserve(ProtectedArea); - g. Thelikelydirect andindirectadverseeffectsof theproposedplanningapprovalon the adjoiningprotected area;and - h. Thattheadverseimpactoftheproposedplanningapprovalcannotbesatisfactorily mitigatedbyconditions.

¶ [15] 3） Onthebasisoftheinformationcurrentlyavailableregardingthesubmissionfor planningapprovalforacabanaandremediationworktoaseawallonparcel5B162 theNationalConservationCouncil authorisedtheDepartmentofEnvironment,acting <!-- image --> underitspreviouslydelegatedauthority,todirecttheCentralPlanningAuthorityto refusetheapplication. - 4 Thisdecisionwill needstoberatified atthenextsuitableGeneralMeeting. - 5) TheCouncil takesthisopportunitytoremind theoriginatingentities(TheDepartment ofPlanningandtheCentralPlanningAuthority)thatapersonaggrievedbyadecision of theCouncilmayappealthatdecisionundersection39oftheAct andtheoriginating entities should make suchpersonis aware of this by the usual and sufficient means."

¶ [35] TheDirector's memorandum repeated the Director's concerns about the adequacyof the replacementseawall thatwould bebuilt aspart of theproposal.In addition,shegave her opinion that thedevelopmentwould belikelytohave an adverseimpactontheSevenMileBeachMarine Reserve,throughthe dischargeofdissolvedorsuspendedmineralsorsolids,whichmaybeharmful tocoralsandsponges: TheDepartment isvery concerned about theconstructionimpactsontheMarineProtected Area.Giventheerosionthathasoccurred..itisunclearhowtheseworkscanbe conductedwithoutcausingsignificantlevelsofsedimentationandturbidityinthemarine environment,astheseawillundoubtedlyinundatetheconstructionsite. ... Itdoesnotseempossibletoconstructthisdevelopmentonsuchasmallsitewithout deleteriousimpactsontheMarineReserve,especiallygiventhenegativeimpacts experienced when the seawall was originally constructed... TheinformationprovideddoesnotsatisfytheDepartmentthattheproposeddevelopment wouldnotresultinthedischargeofdissolvedorsuspendedmineralsorsolidsatlevelsthat maybeharmful totheecological or aestheticvalueof the area. Sedimentationisoneofthebiggestpotentialsourcesofreefdegradationbyreducingthe amountoflightavailableforphotosynthesisandbyincreasingsedimentloadoncorals. CoralsareallSchedule1Part1ProtectedSpecies,whichareprotectedatalltimes,and thesiteiswithintheMarineReserve,andcontainsanareaofcoralreefwhichhasavery higheconomicvalueforCayman'stourismbothdirectly（diving,snorkelling)and indirectly(ecosystemservices).Excessivesedimentationcan affectthecomplexfoodweb onthereefbykillingnotonlycorals,but alsospongesorotherorganismswhichserve as foodforimportantfishspecies. Coralsareundercontinuous stressfromexternal sources(e.g.climatechange,bleaching events,StonyCoralTissueDisease)andaddingfurther localstresscouldbethetipping pointpassedwhich ourcoralscannot survive.Giventhatsomanyexternalstressorson coralsarebeyondthecontroloftheCaymanIslandsGovernmentandstatutorybodies (includingtheCentralPlanningAuthorityandtheNationalConservationCouncil),itis evenmoreimportantthatlocaldecisionswithinCayman'scontroltakeamoredeliberate considerationofcoralsandtheeffectonthemarineenvironment.Thereisverylittle informationprovidedbytheapplicantonproposedconstructionmethodology,andnone whichindicatesthat theeffects on theMarineReserve could bemitigated."

¶ [36] TheCPAwastherebyawarethattheDirectorwasoftheviewthatthegrantofplanningpermission wouldbelikelytohavean adverseeffectonaprotected area. <!-- image -->

¶ [37] The CPA met on 1September2021 toconsidervarious applications for planningpermission including theApplication.It became clear during this hearing that the CPA comprisesitsmembers appointed under the DPA.It does not have its own staff.Mr Jackson explained that when responses come totheDepartmentofPlanning(effectivelythe CPA'ssecretariat) afterconsultationunder s.7 DPA (s.41(3) NCA) they are notconsidered by anyone at that point.They are included on the agenda for the CPA meeting at which a particular planning application is being considered. That willbethefirstoccasiononwhichrelevantresponseswillbedrawn tothe attentionoftheCPA.It is only at that point that any responsesfrom e.g. the DOE will be considered by the members ofthe CPA.It is at that point that consideration is given as to the application of s.41(3) and possibly (4). TherecordoftheCPA'sdeliberationinrelationtotheApplicationisasfollows: "Theapplicant'sengineermaderepresentationthatthecurrentseawallhadbecome compromisedandwaspresentingtheapplicantwithseveralissuesandwasindesperate needofrepairorreplacement.TheAuthorityconcludedthediscussionbynotingthatthe currentstateofthepropertywasan areaofconcern,however,thedeliberationofthe Authorityhadtobeconfinedtotheapplicationcurrentlybeforeit.TheAuthorityaccepted thatithadtowalkafinelinegiventhattheapplicationbeforeit,consistingofacabana andseawall,wouldresultinaredevelopmentofanexistingsiteandnotavacantgreen fieldsite. TheCPAalsonotedthatasfarasmassing/scale/height areconcerned,theproposeddesign forthecabanawasahugeimprovement totheexistingroofedstructure. TheAuthoritynoted thatplanningpermissionwasgiveninthepastforanLshaped seawall,whichasnotedbytheapplicantisexhibitingsignsofsignificantstructural deteriorationandwasindangerofstructuralfailure.Itwasacceptedthatrepairworks couldbeundertakenontheexistingwallwithoutthenecessitytoobtainplanning permission. Thecurrentseawall,asnotedbytheDoEiscontributingtotheerosionofthebeachinthis area.Thatsaid,itisnotedthatthecurrentwallworksinconcertwithotherseawallsinthe area,inclusiveoftheCIGbuiltseawallaimedatprotectingtheBoggySandsRd.and associatedproperties. TheAuthoritynotesthattheDoEhad,asapartofthediscussionswiththeapplicant, endorsedtheuseofacurvedseawall,andhadnotedthatuseoftherecommendedcurved designwouldmitigatetheimpactsofthewall andtheadjacentproperties. TheDoEhadendorsedtheutilisationofacurvedwalldesignasameanstoredirector dissipatewaveenergy,oncedesignedbyacoastalengineer.TheAuthoritywassatisfied thattheproposedseawallhadbeendesignedbyaqualifiedcivilengineerwithsufficient coastalworkexperience,andthereforeacceptedthedesignaspresented.

¶ [38] The Application was approved and the CPA produced a statement of reasons as follows: ## "Reasonsforthe decision: - 1.Exceptforthehigh-water marksetback,whichis addressedbelow,the application complieswiththeDevelopmentandPlanningRegulations(2021Revision). <!-- image --> - Theproposeddevelopmentdoesnotcomplywiththeminimumrequiredsetbackfrom thehigh-watermarkperRegulation8(1o)(b)of theDevelopment andPlanning Regulations(2021Revision).Pursuant toRegulation8(11),theAuthority may allow a lessersetbackhavingregardto: - a. theelevationof theproperty andits environs; - C. thestorm/beachridge; - b. thegeologyoftheproperty; - d. the existence of a protectivereef adjacent to the proposed development; - e. thelocationofadjacentdevelopment;and - f anyothermaterial considerationwhichtheAuthorityconsiderswill affectthe proposal. In thisinstance,theAuthoritydeterminedthefollowing - TheAuthorityacceptedtheadvicerenderedinitiallybytheDepartmentof Environmentthattheuseofacurvedorsteppedseawallwouldservetoredirect ordissipatewaveenergy,therebyreducingthenegativeeffectsthecurrentseawall is causing. - TheAuthoritywassatisfiedthatitwasnotinpossessionofalawfuldirectiveissued underSection41(5)oftheNationalConservationAct,bytheNational ConservationCouncildirectingtheAuthoritytorefuseplanningpermission withoutundertakingafullinquiryandconsiderationoftheapplicationunderits statutorymandatetoeffectivelydirectdevelopmentsoassafeguardtheeconomic, cultural,social,andgeneralwelfareofthepeople,subjecttheretotheenvironment. - Theelevationofthepropertyanditsenvironsishighenoughtoassistin minimizingstormsurgethusallowingtheproposeddevelopmenttobecloserto thehigh-watermark. - Theconstructionof aseawallservestoattenuatetheimpactsofwaveaction. - Thereareexistingdevelopmentsonadjacentpropertieswithsimilarsetbacksfrom thehigh-watermark.Therefore,thesetbackoftheproposeddevelopmentis consistentwiththeestablisheddevelopmentcharacterofthearea,anditwillnot detractfromtheabilityofadjacentlandownersfromenjoyingtheamenityoftheir lands. - TheAuthorityacceptedtheviewthattheproposeddesignoftheseawallwillserve tomitigateimpactsuponabuttingproperties.Specifically,theconvexdesignofthe wallandthecurveatthetopofthewallwillreducetheimpactsofwaveaction. TheAuthoritynotedthattheproposedsetbacksareanimprovementoverthe previousplanningpermissiongrantedin2009. - TheapplicationwassubjecttoSection15(4)noticestoadjacentlandownersand noobjectionswerereceived.TheAuthoritywassatisfiedthattheproposed structureswouldnotbemateriallydetrimentaltopersonsresidinginthevicinity, totheadjacent properties,ortotheneighbouringpublicwelfare. - TheAuthoritydeterminedthattheexistingseawallwasbecomingdetrimentalto theproperty,surroundingproperties,andtheabuttingMarineProtectedArea giventhedeterioratingstateofthewalland theseriousstructuralintegrityissues relatingtothefailureofthefoundationsasnotedbythereviewingengineer.The Authorityconcludedthatpermittingthecurrentseawalltoremaininsituwould resultintheleastdesirableoutcomeforthesurroundingenvironswiththe inevitablefurtherdeteriorationandeventualfailureoftheexistingwall. - TheAuthorityfullyconsideredtheadvicesubmittedbytheDoEanddetermined thatinitsconclusiontheDoEplacedanunduerelianceontheconceptofa managedretreatandremovalofallstructuresfromthesite,asthiswasnota <!-- image --> considerationbeforetheAuthority.TheAuthoritynotestheinconsistencyinthe adviceprovidedbytheDoEwhichadvocatedfortheremovalofallstructuresfrom theproperty,juxtaposedagainsttherecommendationcallingfortheinstallation ofaproperlydesignedwall,onthesubjectsite,fortheprotectionoftheadjoining housewithatie-intothesheet-piledCIGinstalledseawallonMaryMollyHydes Road.TheAuthoritywasunabletorationalisetheinconsistencyintheadvice renderedbytheDoEinthisregard,andthereforewasunabletoadoptthe advocatedcourseof action."

¶ [39] As part of the CPA's analysis as set out in the minutes of its meeting on 1 September 2021,it is notedonpage30that: "TheAuthority askedMrAlbergatocomment on thefact thatDoEdirectorwas directing theCPAtorefusetheapplication.MrAlbergastatedthathisopinionwastheCPAhad discretionto approvethedevelopment assubmittedandwerenotboundbythecomments oftheDoE.TheAuthorityshouldtakeintoaccounttheurgencyof thesituation andthatthe existingwallcannotberepairedandwillfail."

¶ [40] It seems therefore,that the CPA approached the planning application on thefollowing basis:

¶ [2] 40.1 itwascognizantoftheconcernsexpressedbytheDOE/NCCastothelikelyadverseeffect that theproposedworkswouldhaveon theenvironment and thatinitsletterof24June 2021it hadpurportedtoauthorizetheDOE todirect that the CPArefuseplanning permission;

¶ [3] 40.2 ithadconcluded thattheDirectorhadnolegal authoritytodirectitpursuant tos.41(5) NCA;

¶ [4] 40.3 itformed theview(likelybasedontheadvicefromMrAlbergawhoappeared atthis hearing with Mr Lowe on behalf of the Interested Party)that,in any event,it had a discretion and wasnot bound by thecomments from the Director;

¶ [5] 40.4 it was of theview that the sea wall wasgoing tofail unless replaced or repaired leading to potentially more serious consequences for the environment; and,

¶ [6] 40.5 on that basis, it assumed the responsibility for imposing such conditions on the grant of planningpermission that itfelt met the concernsof DOE/NCC as to the adverseeffect on the environment and that,asaresult,therewould not likelybean adverse impact on the environmentbyvirtueofthegrantofplanningpermissionandthereforenoneedtomake an application under s.41(4). ## The application for judicial review - 41.On 28 September 2021,in accordance with the pre-action protocol forjudicial review, counsel for theNCCsentaletterbeforeactiontotheCPAandtotheInterestedParty.Theletterconfirmsthat the decision under challengewas the decision by the CPA to grantplanningpermission to the <!-- image --> InterestedParty,despitethedirectionfrom theDirectorbecause theCPAtooktheviewthatthe direction constituted a"directive"within the meaning ofs.3(13)of theNCA and,as such,the delegation of thatfunctionwasinvalid.

¶ [42] An applicationforleave toclaim judicial reviewwasissued on 20September 2021.Atparagraph 10, the application describes the grounds forjudicial review as being"narrow and hard-edged":

¶ [2] 42.1 first,theNCCclaimed that a s.41(5) direction is not a"directive"within themeaning of the NCA. Accordingly, the s.41(5) direction to the Respondent to refuse planning permission was valid and the grant of planning permission was in breach of the Respondent's duty to give effect to the s.41(5) decision; and,

¶ [3] 42.2 second,even if the s.41(5) directionwas invalid,the grant ofthePermissionwas unlawful because the Respondent had failed to obtain the Applicant's consent as required by s.41(4). TheApplicant alsoreferred in paragraph49of its applicationforleave tothe contention that the Respondent didnot reject theDirector'sconclusions(or,at least,failedtogivereasons which could reasonablyjustify therejection oftheDirector's conclusion).

¶ [43] The relief sought by theApplicantis an order quashing the decision under challenge and a declaration that a direction to an originating entity under s.41(5)(b) ofthe NCA is not a "directive", meaningit canbedelegatedbytheApplicantstotheDirectorof theDepartmentof Environment unders.3(13) oftheNCA.

¶ [44] On14 October2021leavewasgrantedonthepapersbyMadamJusticeRamsay-Haleforthe Applicant to applyfor judicial review and staying the grant of planningpermission until thefinal hearing.

¶ [45] Thewritten submissionsof thepartiespreparedfor thishearingdealwith therespectivepositions of the parties.The directions given leading up to this hearing provided for the Respondent's submissionstobefiledandservedfirstandthenthoseoftheApplicant,soIwill dealwiththemin thatorder.

¶ [4] 45.1 Thefirstissueidentifiedby theRespondentisthats.3(13) of theNCA doesnotpermit the NCC to delegategiving ordersor directions so theDirector couldnot assume that she has delegated authority to direct the CPA to refuse planning permission.TheRespondent says that all that canbedelegatedto theDirectoris theissuanceofguidancenotes.As outlined abovetheNCCrejectsthiscontention. <!-- image --> - 45.2 The second issue identifiedbythe Respondent iswhether the CPA hasto apply to theNCC for consentbeforegrantingplanningpermission if it has determined that the grant of planningpermissionwould nothave an adverseeffect ontheenvironment? - 45.3 TheRespondent argued that s.41(4) of theNCA required the CPA to have specific regard towhethertherewould orcould be an adverseimpact on a protected area and critical habitat of a protected species,before the CPA could refer thematter to theNCC.In this case it is said that the CPA had nothing before it uponwhich itcould rationally and lawfullyhave made such a finding. - 45.4 It ended up being common ground that the NCC's power under s.41(5) cannot arise unless an application is made under s.41(4). This means that,in this case,the steps taken by the Directorto"direct"theCPAwereofnoeffectregardlessofwhether theNCChadpower to delegate them to theDirector and,if it did,whether it did soeffectively. - 45.5 For the purposes of these proceedings only, it was accepted by the NCC that if the CPA lawfully determines that a development will not have an adverse effect on a protected area or critical habitat, then it is not required to obtain the NCC's approval under s.41(4) of the NCA and theNCC's functionsunders.41(5) donot arise.Inturn,thisthenlead to argument about the question of thereasonableness of the CPA's decisionin thatregard. The Respondent and Interested Party objected to the latterissue being raised as they submitted that itfelloutsidethe ambitofthe applicationfor judicialreviewasdraftedbythe Applicant.They argued that the application could onlyproceed on the basis of the grounds set out in the statement of facts and grounds in support of the application9.It was argued that the statementoffacts andgroundsdid notraise orrelyon thequestionofwhether the decision of theCPA that s.41(4) did not applywasreasonable. - 45.6The third issue is whether, as a matter of law, the discretion granted to the NCC under s.41(5)of theNCAcanbe delegated totheDirectorof theDOE.Thishas endedupnot being an issue thatrequires determinationfor the purposes of the current judicial review but thepartieshave askedme toconsiderexpressingmyview on the point asitwill assist them in thefuture. ## IstheGuidancelawful? - 46.Notwithstanding, the somewhat fluid position of the parties in relation to some of the issues that have been raised,it seems to me that the startingpoint in this caseisto consider the status of the Guidance. 19 GCR O.53, r.6(1). 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal

¶ [47] Guidance.

¶ [2] 47.1 In that regard,theRespondent refers to s.3(12)(i) oftheNCA which provides: TheCouncil.,subjectto any directionsof theCabinet,maymakeordersand guidancenotes andissue directivesfor thepurpose ofgiving effectto the provisionsof thisLawandsuchorders,guidancenotes anddirectivesmayinclude... (i) procedures for consultation by entities pursuant to section 41(3)." - 47.2 Pursuant to s.3(12)(i)of the NCA,theNCC issued the Guidance which states amongst other things: "Tocomplywith theLaw all government entities shall consult with theCouncilif theyaretakinganyaction,grantinganypermission,takinganydecisionorgiving or engagingin anyundertakingwhichmatchesthefollowing'trigger'conditions. - A)LocationTriggers are(as shown on theScreeningMap): - i Activitiesoccurringonthecoast,i.e.,within500feetlandwardof thehighwatermarkandactivitiesoccurringonlandparcelswith canalfrontage - ii Activitiesoccurringseawardof thehighwatermark - ii) Activitiesin areasof primaryhabitatorcritical habitat(asdefined inaConservationPlan) - iv) Activitiesinoradjacenttoaprotectedarea - B)ActivityTriggers include: - i) Subdivision,clearing,filling,orexcavationonlandofoneacreor more - ii Landreclamationprojects - iii) Largescaleresidentialdevelopmentsandspecialpurpose developments,includingprojectsofnationalimportance,mixeduse andPlannedAreaDevelopments - iv) Agricultureonlandareagreaterthanoneacre,andinstallationof aquacultureandthereclamationoflandfromtheseaforsuch purposeof any scale. - V Telecommunication,broadcastorradarinstallations - vi) Transportationinfrastructure,includingplanningorconstructionof newroads,includingconstructionofroadextensions - vii) Industrial Processing,Manufacturing,Rendering,Production, Treatment,Storage,orSimilarFacilities - vii) Stormwaterdrainageandmanagementschemes - ix) Petroleumfossilfuel,biofuelandotherfuelorchemicalproduction, processing,holding,transferortransportfacilities - x) WasteManagementActivities,Solid&amp;Liquid,includingnew facilities,expansion,enhancementorchangeofsystematexisting facilities - xi) Excavationandextractiveoperations,including-marinedredging: quarries;extractionofminerals;deep drillings (including geothermaldrilling);extractionofpetroleum,naturalgasor ores; <!-- image --> <!-- image --> - aninstallationforthedisposalofcontrolledwaste(s)frommines andquarries. - xii) EnergyGenerating,TransferorTransmissionFacilities - xiii) Groundwaterorseawaterabstraction - xiv) AirportsandAirstrips - xv) Ports,harbours,yachtmarinaandinlandwaterwayswhichpermit thepassageofvessels - xvi) WaterGeneratingFacilities,includingDesalinizationPlants - xvi)Discharge,EmissionorDisposal ofEffluentsorothermaterials - xviiDecommissioningorDecontaminationofindustrialinstallations - xix) Physical,ChemicalorBiologicalPestControlActivities,including applicationofpesticides,includinglarvacidesandadulticides, herbicides,insecticides,rodenticides,etc. - (xcx Settingfiresfortheclearanceofland - xxi) BurialatSeaorotherthaninadesignatedcemetery - xxii)MarineMoorings,etc. - xxiii)AnchorageAreas - xxiv)ControlofNuisanceAnimals orPlants - xxv) LicensingofTradeOrBusinessActivitiesWhichUtilizeLocal Natural ResourcesForTheirCoreActivity - xxvi)DischargeorModification ofPermissions and ConditionsAttached toPermissions - C)StrategicTriggersincludethecreationof - (i)National orSectoralPoliciesorProjectsincluding,butnot limitedto - a)TourismPlans - b) EconomicPlans - d) DevelopmentPlans - c) EnergyPolicies,includingPowerNeeds/PurchasePlanning - e) TransportPlans - f InfrastructurePlanning - g) Socio-EconomicPlanning - h) PortPlans,AirorSea - i EmergencyResponsePlanning,IncludingStateofEmergency Derogations - j IndustrialActivityPlans - k) Emergency orDisasterResponse Management Plans - 1) Acquisition/Sale/Disposal/Lease/LoanofCrownLand." - 47.3 TheRespondent says that the provisionof"trigger conditions"goes beyond the meaning and scopeof thedefinitionof"adverseeffect"provided ins.2of theNCA and is an unlawfulexpansion of theNCA.TheRespondentsays thatthiscontradictss.41(3)and 41(4) oftheNCA,whichprovide that the CPA shall determineforitself whethera grant of permissionwould or would belikely to have an adverse effect.Byway ofexample,the Respondent referred to the requirement that the CPA seek approval from the NCC,for any applicationrelating toproperty within 500ft landward of thehigh-water mark,a requirementthatincludesthemajorityofthelandintheIslandsandonewhichthe <!-- image --> Respondent implies is too wide.The Respondent says that the lawful function of issuing "guidance notes"is that they be explanatory and instructive, e.g., to explain, procedures for consultation. Insofar as the NCC's guidance notes purport to stray into to field of giving "directives"or"orders"or otherwise expand theNCC'spowers beyond theremit of the NCA,theRespondent says thatthey areultravires thelaw andconsequentlyarenot binding.

¶ [48] The NCC's position is that the Guidancewas issued bythe NCC under s.41(2) of theNCA and the Guidancehasneverbeen challenged under s.44whichprovidesthat: "Anypersonmay,withoutprejudiceto anyotherlegalredresshemighthave,makean applicationtothecourtforthejudicialreviewofanyactoromissionunderthisLaw ofanyentity,publicofficer,theCouncilortheDirectorthatisallegedtobein violationofanyprovisionof thisLaw." On that basis,the NCC says that unless and until challenged by judicial review and quashed,the rule of law requires that the Guidance is followed?20.

¶ [49] More substantively,s.3(12)of theNCAprovides that: TheCouncil,subjecttoanydirectionsoftheCabinet,maymakeordersandguidancenotes andissuedirectivesforthepurposeofgivingeffecttotheprovisionsof thisLawandsuch orders,guidance notes and directives may include.."(emphasis added). The power to issue guidance notes (which is not a defined term) is not specifically limited to the matters listed in s.3(12).Ashasbeen indicated above,s.3(12)(i) refers specifically toguidance in relation toproceduresforconsultation by entities pursuant to s.41(3).The definition of"adverse impact"referstoeffectsthat"mayresultinthephysicalordetrimental alterationofaprotected area,aconservation area,an area of criticalhabitat ortheenvironment generally andincludes.." (emphasis added).Again,the concept of adverse impact is not limited by reference to the factors set out in s.2 and the threshold for it to be a factor is no higher than "may". - 50.In s.41 it isprovided that: "(2)For thepurposesofsubsection(l)theCouncil shall formulateandissueguidance notestoentitiesontheirdutiesunderthisLaw,andanyactiontakeninfullaccordance withsuchguidanceshallbedeemedtobeincompliancewiththisLaw." 20 R(Majera)vSecretary of Stare for the HomeDepartment [2022]AC461,para 29which states:"If an unlawful administrativeactordecisionisnotchallengedbeforeacourtofcompetentjurisdiction,orifpermissiontobringan applicationforjudicialreviewisrefused,theactordecisionwillremainineffect." 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal <!-- image --> The relevant sections from the Official Hansard Report dealing with the NCB record that the wording in s.41 was changed so that instead of referring to"directives giving"it referred to

¶ [51] Looking at theprovisions of the NCA itself,I see nothing thatplaces restrictions on theNCC to issuetheGuidanceinitscurrentform orthatwouldrendertheGuidanceunlawful orsuggeststhat the NCCcould be said to have been actingultravires when issuing it.Even if therewas good argument to that effect,the Applicant has rightly pointed out that,unless and until challenged, the Guidancestands tobefollowedas amatterof law.It is expresslyprovided that the Guidance can cover procedures for consultation under s.41(3) and that is what they do. In my view, the Guidance islawful and,as amatterof statute,mustbefollowedbyentities.

¶ [52] On thebasis therefore that theGuidanceisvalid andlawful,thisis a useful point tolookatitina littlemoredetail asI thinkitisrelevant to thefurtherdebateovers.41(4).Italsostrikesme as important tobear in mind that, as the Guidance reminds us and asmentioned at the outset,theNCA applies to "entities"defined as meaning any body of the government and includes the Cabinet, any ministry,portfolio,statutory authority,government,company or anyotherbodywhich exercises a public function.It also includes all government departments,agencies, units, administrations, etc., as arms of their relevantMinistry.Sowhen considering the various submissions on the part of the CPA and theInterested PartyI have tobearin mind that therelevantprovisions of theNCA apply farmore widely than just in the context of thegrant of planning permission.

¶ [53] As a matter of course,entities will have to consider the environment in the context of taking decisionsoractions.Ifadecisionoractioninvolvestheenvironmentthenthefirststepwill befor the entity to consider theGuidance,asit isrequired todo.If the decision or action involves one or more of the triggers then the entity must consult theNCC pursuant to s.41(3).

¶ [54] After the section dealing with triggers, the Guidance goes on to provide as follows: "Assessment ofConsultationsby theCouncil Inassessingarequestforconsultationasaresultoftriggeringactivities,locationsor strategicpoliciesorprojects（A-Cabove)theCouncilwilltakeintoaccount the characteristicsoftheproposedaction,itslocation andthepotentialforadverseimpacton theenvironment,particularlythecumulativeeffectofthecharacteristics.Examplesof relevantcharacteristicsare:- CharacteristicsofAction - 1.Thecharacteristicsofanactionmustbeconsideredhavingregard,inparticular, to- 21Page408. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal - a. Size of the action; - b. Thecumulationwithother actions; - C. Theuseofnaturalresources; - d. Theproductionofwaste; - e. Pollution andnuisances; - f. Therisk ofaccidents,havingregardinparticular tosubstances or technologiesused. ## LocationofAction - 2.Theenvironmentalsensitivityofgeographical areaslikelytobeaffectedby an actionmustbeconsidered,havingregardinparticular,to- - a. Theexistingland use; - Therelativeabundance,qualityandregenerativecapacityofnatural resourcesinthe area; - C. Theabsorptioncapacityofthenaturalenvironment,payingparticular attentiontothefollowingareas - i. Wetlands; - ii. Dry forest; - ii. Xerophyticshrubland - iv. Protected areas; - vi. MarineParksorReserves; - V. Coastal zones; - vi. Denselypopulatedareas; - viii. Landscapes ofhistorical, culturalorarchaeological significance. ## Characteristicsof thepotentialimpact - 3.Thepotentialsignificanteffectsof actionsmustbeconsideredinrelationtocriteria setout underparagraphs1 and2above,andhavingregardinparticularto- - a.Theextentof theimpact(geographical area andsize of theaffected population); - b. Themagnitudeandcomplexityof theimpact; - C. Theprobability of theimpact; - d. Theduration,frequency andreversibilityof theimpact. Arequestforconsultationshallbeaccompaniedby: - 1)Aplansufficient toidentify the locationofactivity; - 2)A detaileddescriptionof thenature andpurposeof the activity,including any plansinthecaseofdevelopmentsorsimilar,and theactivity'spossibleeffects ontheenvironment;and - 3)Any otherinformationthat theentitymaking therequest maywish toprovide. TheDoE,onbehalfoftheCouncil,if theyconsiderthat theyhavenotbeenprovided withenoughinformationtoprovideaninformedconsultationresponse,shallnotifyin writingtheentitymakingtherequestofthepointsonwhichtheyrequireadditional information. Councilconsultationmaybebegunby emailingConservationCouncil@gov.ky,orby memoormailcareoftheDepartmentofEnvironment.QuestionsregardingtheLaw ingeneralorconsultingwiththeCouncilinparticularmaybelikewisedirected.These GuidanceNoteswill bereviewedperiodicallybytheCouncil asappropriate. TheCouncilwelcomespre-project/applicationconsultationwithindividualsaswellas entities considering any of the above." <!-- image --> <!-- image --> I do not believe that there is any disagreement that the Director and the DOE are specialists. Indeed,one onlyhas tolook at thefunctions of theDirector asset outins.6of theNCA and thesubstantiveinvolvementoftheDirectorandmembersoftheDoEasmembersoftheNCC to appreciate thatfact.The reasonfor quotingfrom the Guidance at such lengthisbecause it seemstome thatitclearlysets outthenon-exhaustivecriteriathattheNCC,inconjunction with the Director and DOE,should apply and follow when conducting assessment of consultations.ItistheNCCthereforethatconductsthatexerciseasitisempoweredand appropriately skilled to do. The earlier extracts from Hansard also make it clear, in my view, that thelegislatureintended thatitwouldbe theNCCconductingassessmentsofwaysto mitigate the effects of actions on a protected area or a criticalhabitat area,or,indeed,to eliminate those impacts.In doing so,theNCC acts as the surrogate of Cabinet. ## Section41(4)

¶ [55] Theposition of the Applicant is that,for the purposes of this claim,it accepts that if the CPA lawfully determines that a development will not have an adverse effect on a protected area or critical habitat, then it is not required to obtain theNCC's approval under s.41(4) of the NCA and the NCC'sfunctionsunder s.41(5) donot arise.

¶ [56] TheNCCreserves theright to argue in thefuture that either (a)theNCCis the primary decisionmakerinrelation towhether development"wouldbelikelytohaveanadverseeffect,whether directlyorindirectly,onaprotectedareaoronthecriticalhabitatofaprotectedspecies"forthe purposes of s.41(4) (pursuant to a consultation under s.41(3), through which it will be provided with details of the proposal) or (b) that this is a precedent fact which, in the event of dispute,must bedeterminedobjectivelybytheCourt.

¶ [57] The InterestedParty takes theview that s.41(4) has two elements.The first is the requirement of adverse effect.Thesecond is themandatoryobligationtomake an application totheNCConce thatconditionissatisfied.

¶ [4] 57.1The Interested Party approaches the question of how s.41(4) works by comparing the relativemeritsofhavingthedeterminationmadebyeithertheCPAortheNCC.Itsposition is that s.41 clearly points to a conclusionthat it must be the licensing orpermitting authority and not theNCC that has to decide whether or not the trigger condition is satisfied.Infact, it says, s.41(4) NCA suggests that the NCC has no active role in the application process.

¶ [5] 57.2 It is the permitting or licensing authority which applies to theNCCfor approval under s.41(4) NCA. It imposes an obligation on, for example, the CPA.It does not confer any <!-- image --> power on the NCC to decide when or whether that application has to be made.Because the licensing or permitting is required to make an application,it is logical for that entity to determinewhether ornot the thresholdconditionis satisfied,otherwise theprocessof applyingismerely administrative. - 57.3 Section 41(4) NCA applies as between the NCC and any other "entity"that grants permission (i.e. another statutory body or a part of the Government).The duty to apply to theNCC is imposed on an administrative body as public law duty owed to theNCC. - 57.4 Itisinevitabletherefore theInterestedPartyarguesthats.41mustoperatein amore complex statutory context applicable to the relevant licensing regime (here theDPA). - 57.5 The legislature hasnecessarily already entrusted the other statutory body (here the CPA) with the administration of a licensing or permitting system (here the grant/refusal of planningpermission).Itisentirelylogical thatitwould trustthatsamebodytomakethe thresholddecisionunderSection41(4)NCA. - 57.6 TheNCCis givennopower in theNCA tointervene orinsist on an application to itself under s.41(4) so that it can exercise its express powers under Section 41(5) NCA.This is hardly surprising according to theInterestedParty aspublicbodies shouldbe ableto cooperate andcometosomeconsensus.If thelegislaturehadintendedfortheNCCtobe abletointervene,itwould surelyhavedonesoin amuchlessroundaboutmanner than requiring an application tobemade to it for approval.For example, the NCC could have beengivenpower to callintheinterestedparty'sapplicationforpermission or been allowed to reject it directly.The absence of any express power of interventionis a powerful indicationthatthereisnone. - 57.7 The entity that administers a licensing orpermittingsystem such as the CPA isinevitably in afarbetterposition than any othergovernmentbody to decidewhether thatparticular application for planning permission triggers the condition in s.41(4) to require approval by the NCC. - 57.8 The licensing or permitting authority should be inpossession of all the material background well before any application for theNCC's approval had to be made under s.41(4). The CPA,forexample,islikelytohavebeenprovidedwithsubstantialpaperworkaspartofits ownpermitting/licensingprocess atamuchearlierstage. - 57.9 The licensing or permitting authority canbe expected necessarilytobe sufficientlyfamiliar withtheenvironmentalissuestoknowwhether ornotithasto applytotheNCCunder s.41(4) (without prompting by the NCC). This because it otherwise cannot perform its own general statutory obligationwith respect conservation issues. <!-- image --> - 57.10Moreover,even ifit is not true of others, the CPA certainly will as amatter of course (and express obligation) consult with the DOE, as indeed it did here. S. 7 DPA provides that the CPA must consult with other government bodies"to thegreatest extent possible"(which it did). - 57.11 In contrast, the Interested Party says,the NCC is not in nearly as good a position as the CPA to determine,before an application for approval is made to it under s.41(4),whether ornotaplanningpermissionwould havearelevantadverse effectsoasto trigger the obligation. - applicationforplanningpermissionbeingmade toanother entitymaybeunknown tothe DOEor NCCbefore therelevant statutorybody hasmade an application toit underSection 41(4). In any given case there may havebeen no or minimal publicity or such publicity as existedmaynothavebeennoticedbytheDOEorNCC. - 57.13Even when the fact of the application for planning permission is known to the DOE/NCC, theymaynotknow enough about that applicationso astobe ableto determinewhether the application for permission (e.g.to the CPA) poses a relevant adverse risk.In contrast,the relevant statutorybody ismuch more likely tobein possession of thatinformation. - 57.14TheInterestedParty argues that if statutorybodies function as they are supposed to function (as it says the CPA did in fact in this case), s.41(4) works perfectly well.If the NCC/DOEwas concerned it could haveurged the CPA tomake an application(which it didnot) orcould havesaidthat thepermitwould have an adverse effecton an endangered species (which it did not) or could have asked Cabinet to intercede.If it does not like the WayinwhichtheCPA decidedwhethertherewastherelevantadverseeffect,it shouldnot be allowed to challenge the CPA unless it can show that the CPA acted perversely.That points to aconventional ex postfactoWednesbury challenge andnot arightfor theNCC todecideforitselfwhether the threshold ins.41(4) is satisfied. - 58.The Interested Party goes on to argue that the adverse effect condition in s.41(4) itself gives rise to anumberofissuesofconstruction: - 58.1There is the question of what kind of adverse effect needs tobe shown.The issue of construction islargely settled by the statutory definition in s.2where"adverseeffect"is definedessentiallybyreferencetovariousformsofenvironmentalrisk. - 58.2Thereis an immediateneed toknowhow this adverseeffectistobeestablished and by whom.TheInterestedPartysaysthatthechoicesastowhoshouldmakethedetermination <!-- image --> of adverse effect,boil down to (i) anobjective test resolvedby a tribunal (i) the CPA or (ii)theNCC/DOE. - 58.3 The InterestedParty says that it isnowconceded that it is the CPA who makes the decision. Otherwise,theNCCcouldnotcriticise theCPAfor a lackofreasons:itisonlybecauseit nowaccepts the CPA tobethe decision-maker that it has anyjudicial reviewgrounds. - 58.4 TheNCCnowagreesitisamatterfortheCPAtomakethe administrativedecisionwhether thetriggerconditioninSection41(4) is satisfiedwhich can bereviewedprimarily on Wednesburygrounds. - 58.5 The corollary is that if theNCC succeeds in these proceedings on"failure to give reasons the permissionwould be quashedfor the CPA togivefurtherreasonswhich is likely(given whatwas said bythe CPA) toremain the same decisionwithmore explanation.That renders the current judicial review process fruitless. - 58.6 The Interested Party argues that s.41(4) also requires a causal connection between the grant of a permit and theriskof adverse effect.That test is expressed by the words"would or would be likely to have"adverse effect.This is the same causal test as in s.41(3). - 58.7 Thegrantof apermit must thereforebelinked toaspecific risk of adverse effect. - 58.8 The words"would"or"would be likely"suggest that there must be a fairly strong degree of probability of a risk of adverse effect.This is important says theInterestedParty.First, thetestofcausationmusthavebeenintendedtocreateadistinctionbetweentheroleof different agencies in causing risk.The Interested Party gives examples: - 58.8.1It is obvious that the grant of planning permission which permits development in themangrovesis itselfcausing an adverse effect.Planningpermission would specifically allow development where it should not take place; - 58.8.2It is far less obvious that the grant of planning permission allows the developer to deploy"dirty"construction methods which would have an adverse effect on the environment.The applicationfor planning permission ordinarily would not deal with this. Secondly,oncecausationis anissueit alsobecomesnecessarytotiethegrantofpermit to anidentifiableorspecificriskofadverseeffect.Otherwise,howcouldcausationwork？ - 58.9 Oncethetriggercondition issatisfieds.41(4)createsamandatoryobligationtoapply to theNCCfor approval.Thereisnodiscretion at thatpoint.Itis obviouslyimplicit that the NCChas a duty toconsiderthat application. - 59.The position of the Respondent in relation to the application of s.41(4) is set out below: <!-- image --> - 59.1 It is argued thatincircumstanceswhere the CPAhas some rational basisfor concluding thatthegrantingofplanningapprovalwouldhaveorwouldlikelyhaveanadverseeffect, whether directlyor indirectly,ona protected area oron thecritical habitat of a protected species,it shall applyfor theNCC's approval.In determining whether to refer the matter to theNCC,the CPA may takeinto consideration any commentsreceived from theDOE pursuant to the s.7DPA consultation process,but it is not bound tofollow the advice or directionofanotherperson,entity or statutory authority.TheCPA must,taking accountof the advice it hasreceived and all relevant circumstances,weigh and determine foritself whether there is likely tobe an"adverse effect"on the protected area or critical habitat. - 59.2 The CPA's positionis that ifit determines that there is likelytobe such an"adverseeffect", then it must refer the matter to the NCCpursuant to s.41(4) oftheNCA and only thereupon does s.41(5)oftheNCA become operative. - 59.3 The term"adverse effect",as definedin s.2oftheNCA,means:"an effect thatmay cause thephysicaldestructionordetrimentalalterationofaprotectedarea,aconservationarea, an area ofcriticalhabitat or theenvironment generally.Inthiscaseitis said that the CPA concluded thatpermitting the existingfailingseawall toremainin situwould cause theleast desirableoutcomefor the surroundingenvironswith theinevitablefurther deteriorationand eventual failure of the existingwall. - 59.4 Under therecommendation of theDOE,theInterestedParty'sApplicationwas tobuild a newcurvedseawallbehind theexisting,failing,seawallonlyliftingout theblocksofthe existing seawall whilebeing protectedfrom thesea by a screen once thenew curved sea wallininplace.ThiswasnotdeterminedbytheCPAtocause thephysicaldestruction or detrimentalalterationofaprotected area,a conservation area,an area ofcritical habitator the environment generally. - 59.5As theDirector's 1July 2021 memorandum did not identify any specific adverseeffect on a protected area or critical habitat of a protected species,but instead sought tounlawfully and pre-emptively direct the CPA torefuse planning permission,without providing any intelligible rationale for making such unlawful directive,the CPA hadnobasisforfinding that the provisions of s.41(4) of theNCA should be deployed and followed. ## Discussion and analysis

¶ [60] All parties agree that s.41(3) simply requires consultation by entities with theNCC. It is accepted that in thecaseoftheCPA,thisisdoneunders.7oftheDPA.Eitherway,it consultswith theNCC asit is legallyboundtodo.Aswas outlined byMrJacksononbehalfof theCPA andreiteratedby <!-- image --> Mr Lowe onbehalf of theInterestedPartyinits closing submissions,the CPA doesnot take a decisiontoconsult unders.41(3).Pursuant tosection7DPAthe CPAconsults as amatterofcourse. Asexplainedabove,itisfortheNCCtoreviewproposedactions andrespond totherelevantentity with itscomments.Consistentwith theintention of thelegislaturewhen theNCBwasbeing debated,pursuant tos.41(3),advicefrom theNCCasto thelikelyadverseeffectofanyaction on the environment generallymustbeconsidered byentities aspart of theirdecisionmaking process, but,in cases not involving a protected area or the critical habitat of a protected species,is nonbinding.

¶ [61] However, s.41(4) deals specificallywith circumstances in which the taking of any actionby an entitywould orwouldbelikelytohaveanadverseeffectdirectlyorindirectly on aprotectedarea or on the critical habitat ofa protected species.In such circumstances,therelevant entity shall apply for and obtain the approval of theNCC before taking such action.When theNCBwas being debated,as quoted earlier,theGovernment wasquite clearwhatwasintended: "Itisonlyinthatcasewheretheactionbeingproposedhasapotentialnegativeimpacton eitheroneofthosetwoareasthattheadviceoftheCouncilisrequiredtobefollowed. ...thisiswheretheCouncilisactingasthesurrogateofCabinettoprotect theareasthat Cabinethassaidmustremainprotectedafterpublicconsultation,publicinput.Protected areaswillalways,byvirtueof thisBillbeCrownproperty.Itispossiblethatcriticalhabitat areascouldbeonprivateland,however."

¶ [62] Having re-read s.41(4) multiple times during and after the hearing,and having considered the arguments put forward by the NCC and CPA in relation tohow s.41(4)might operate,Ifind it difficult toagreewith thecontention onthe part ofthe CPA and theInterested Party and thelimited concessionbytheNCC,that the CPAor any otherentityfor thatmatteris leftwith anymeaningful discretion under this sub-section.Assuming that consultation takes place under s.41(3) in accordancewiththeGuidanceitseemstomethat theprocessunders.41willworkasfollows:

¶ [2] 62.1 After consultation under s.41(3),hastheNCC expressed anyview about the consequence of theproposed action by an entity?

¶ [3] 62.2 Ifno,thatis the end ofthematter.

¶ [4] 62.3 If yes, and the NCC expresses the view that the giving of any undertaking or approval wouldorwouldlikelytohaveanadverseeffectontheenvironmentgenerallyandthe proposed actiondoesnotinvolve aprotectedarea or thecriticalhabitatof aprotected species,thenthe entityshould considerwhat theNCCsaysbutit isnotbinding.Atthis <!-- image --> stage,based on the response from the NCC,entities such as the CPA might choose to impose related conditions as it thinks fit2 on a grant of planning permission23. - 62.4 If yes, and the NCC expresses the view that the giving of any undertaking or approval wouldorwould likely tohave an adverseeffecton aprotected areaor the criticalhabitat of a protected species,then there appears to be no option but to apply to theNCC under s.41(4).In myview, at that point theonly question for the relevant entity is whether the NCC has expressed the relevant view.If it has,then an application under s.41(4) is mandatory.It isnot a case of theNCC having to engagewith the relevant entity to ensure that this is done,the entityisrequired toapply as a matter of law.It clearly is incumbent on theNCCtoexpressitsviewssufficientlyclearlysothattherecanbenoambiguityasto whetherthereisalikelihoodofan adverseeffectandwhetheritwillinvolveaprotected area or the critical habitat of a protected species. In my view, once that has happened then theentityhasnochoicebut toapplyunders.41(4),whetherit agreeswith theNCCornot.

¶ [63] Inmyview,thatisconsistentwiththeexpressedintentionofthelegislature aswell asthelanguage of the NCA.TheNCC through theDOE is a specialist body.To suggest that an entity has to conduct itsown assessmentofadverseeffectorthatitcanseektosubstituteitsowndecisionforthatofthe NCCeitherbyreachingitsownviewthat thelikelihooddoesnot ariseorthat itcansatisfy the concernsoftheNCCthroughthewaythatitstructuresitsundertakingorapproval seemstometo subvert theintention of the legislature,the expresslanguage of s.41(4) and the Guidance.

¶ [64] In its letter dated24June2021 purporting todirect theCPA torefuseplanningpermissiontheNCC raised,amongst other things: "..d. The potential impacts of redevelopment methods and design on the nearshore environment; e.The eventual collapseof theexistingstructure and theimpact of that on thenearshore environment; fTheadjacent MarineReserve(Protected Area); g.Thelikely direct andindirect adverseeffects of theproposedplanning approvalonthe adjoiningprotectedarea;and h.That theadverseimpactof theproposedplanningapproval cannotbesatisfactorily mitigatedby conditions." "such conditions as they think fit"must be such conditions as a local planning authority should thinkfit to impose, havingregard totheirstatutory duties and tolocal planningconsiderations. <!-- image -->

¶ [65] In theconclusiontohermemorandum dated1July2021 theDirectorsummarizesthepositonof theNCCasbeingthat: "..the proposed development will result in thedetrimental alteration of a MarineProtected Areaand theenvironment generally...".

¶ [66] The definition of adverseeffectexpresslyrefers toaneffectwhichmayresultin the detrimental alterationofa protectedarea.Inmyview,it cannot havebeenclearerthat theDirector and theNCC took theview that the grant of the proposed planning permissionwould result in an adverse effect pursuant to s.41(4). In my view, this required the CPA to apply under s.41(4).

¶ [67] If an application is made under s.41(4) and the NCC acts under s.41(5) in a way that leaves a party aggrieved, there is an express statutory right pursuant to s.39(1)(c) for that party to appeal the decision to the Cabinet.Cabinetmust givereasonsfor its decision²4.A party aggrievedwith the decision of the Cabinet may appeal to the court against that decision25.

¶ [68] Asmentionedabove,IhaveconsideredinparticularthesubmissionsonbehalfoftheInterested Party.Iamoftheviewthatits approachhighlightshow,inpractice,itcannotberight that anentity whichhasnospecializationorskillinmatterscoveredbytheNCAshouldhavetoorcould undertakeanyreasonableassessmentofmatterssuch as adverseeffect,likelihoodorcausationand have that process itself potentially subject tojudicial review.To conduct suchanexerciseinaway, asisrequired,thatisfull and transparent,lawful,rational,proportionate andprocedurallyfair and demonstrably so²6,would seem tome tobeimposing aburdenonnon-specialist entitieswhich they simplycannot dischargein anymeaningful way.Thatcannothavebeen theintentionof the legislature.As stated above,in myview the only question is,has theNCC as a matter of fact expressed a view that invokes s.41(4)? That should be a matter of plainEnglish and the responsibility is on theNCC to ensure that it is clear.

¶ [69] In my view, this approach is supported by the provisions of s.41(5)(a) which specifically provide that the NCC may impose conditions on a proposed action towhich s.41(4) applies. It has power unders.42 to direct that a schedule ofinspectionsbecarried out by or onbehalf of theDirector to ensure compliance with those conditions.Under s.43 the NCC also has power either at the s.41(3) 24 Section39 (2) NCA 26See e.g.National Roads Authority vA.Bodden,Thompson and Wright[2014](2) CILR 47,In theMatter of an ApplicationforPermanentResidencebyHutchinson-GreenandintheMatterofanApplicationforPermanent IslandsConstitutionOrder2009,s.19. 25 Section 39 (3) NCA. <!-- image --> stage orbeforegrantingapproval unders.41(4)torequirethat anenvironmentalimpactassessment is carried out at the cost of the party who will be undertaking the proposed action. In my view,the NCA provides that the decision maker in all material respects in relation to s.41(4) is the NCC. These arenot matters left to theentity inquestion.Theroleof an entityis limitedtofollowing the Guidance(forwhich it isexpressly provided that action take infull accordancewith such Guidance shall be deemed tobe in compliancewith theNCA),receiving anyresponse from theNCC pursuant to s.41(3) and, if the wording of the response invokes s.41(4), making the required application. ## Conclusion inrelation to effectofs.41(4)

¶ [70] On that basis,and on the basis that I have found that the Director's position and that of the NCC in relation to theApplicationwas clear;namely,that thegrant oftheApplication would orwould be likely tohave anadverse effectwhether directlyorindirectly ona protected areaor on thecritical habitat of a protected species, and that the CPA was well aware of that,I have reached the conclusion that the CPA acted unlawfully in failingto acton the clearly expressedviewsof the Director/NCC by not applying under s.41(4) as it was required to do. ## Remedy - 71.1 There is some disagreementbetween theApplicantandRespondentaboutwhatremedyis applicable.

¶ [72] TheInterestedPartywhich has themostdirect interestintheApplication and the outcome of this case argues that: - 72.1 Sections 41(4) and (5) do not specify the consequences for a third party of the CPA's noncompliance with s.41(4). The NCC did not at any stage suggest to the CPA that it was required to make an application under s.41(4).That point,the Interested Party says was not madeuntilwell aftertheApplicationhadbeengranted. - 72.2 In the circumstances,as a matter of this Court's discretion,theInterested Party says that theNCC shouldnot begranted an order quashing the decision togrant theApplication. TheInterested Partyrelies onthecommentaryinHalsbury's LawsVolume 61A[109] cited by the CPA: "Indecidingwhether togrant a remedy thecourtwill take account of theconduct of the partyapplying,andconsiderwhetherithasbeensuchastodisentitlehimtorelief.Undue delay,unreasonableorunmeritoriousconduct,acquiescenceintheirregularity complainedoforwaiveroftherighttoobjectmayallresultinthecourtdecliningtogrant relief.Anotherconsiderationindecidingwhetherornottograntreliefistheeffectofdoing so.Factorswhichmayberelevantincludewhetherthegrantoftheremedyisunnecessary orfutile,whether practical problems,including administrative chaos and public inconvenience,wouldresult,theeffectonthirdparties,andwhethertheformoftheorder wouldrequire closesupervisionby thecourt orbeincapable of practicalfulfilment." <!-- image --> - 72.3In any event,theInterestedParty argues that it is a question of construction todetermine whether thebreach of section41(4) entitles the court to quash the licence,approval or permitonceithasbeengrantedunderotherlegislation.It issubmittedonitsbehalf that thereshould benosuchordergiventhat theDPA alreadyprovidesforquashingofplanning permission and the NCC's challenge is not within the planning appeal system. - 73.The InterestedParty also argues that: - 73.1Nothing in the NCA as amatter of construction suggests that a successful expostfacto judicialreviewchallenge by theNCCrendersvoid theplanningpermissionalreadygiven toa third party and possibly actedupon. - 73.2 Compliancewith the obligation of the CPA to make an application under s.41(4) NCA,is notexpressed tobeaconditionof thegrantofapermitor theissueofalicence. - 73.3 Evenif theCPAmadeamistakeoflaw,it didnotcommitanexcessofjurisdictionasits powers stemfrom theDPA. - 73.4 Ifit hadbeenintended that thefailuretoapplyto theNCCnullifiesthepermittingprocess, the legislature could easily have provided for such a consequence.Such challenges are commoninplanninglegislationbut,wheneverthatis thecase,thelegislaturewould be expected to lay down a strict procedure27.

¶ [74] The Applicant described the Interested Party's position on remedy as"heretical'. It argues that: - 74.1First,the Interested Party's suggestion that"it is a question of construction to determine whether thebreachof Section 41(4)entitles theCourt toquashthelicence,approvalor permit once it hasbeengranted under other legislationiswronginprinciple.It argues thatthecourt'sremedialpowersinjudicialreviewdonotcomefromtheparticularpiece of legislation under consideration, but from the Court's supervisory jurisdiction28. - 74.2 Second,totheextentthattheInterestedPartyseekstodrawadistinctionbetweenanerror oflaw thatis in"excess ofjurisdiction"and an error oflawwithin jurisdiction,then it misunderstandsthe modernlawofjudicialreview.TheApplicantcontendsthatthe distinctionbetweenanerrorinexcessofjurisdictionandanerrorwithinjurisdictionwas 27DeSmith 17-024ff. 28The ancient prerogativeremedies of HerMajesty's HighCourt of Justice are reproducedby s.31 of theSenior Courts Act1981and applytotheGrand Courtbys.11oftheGrand CourtAct(2015Revision). 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal <!-- image --> swept away by Anisminic Ltd vForeign Compensation Commission9;the modern position being that any material error of publiclawrenders an administrative decisionultravires, unlawfulanda nullity(seeR(Lumba)vSecretaryofStatefor theHomeDepartment[2012] 1 AC245,paras.66 and87,perLordDyson). - 74.3 Third, thefact that a quashing orderwillaffect theInterested Party does not justify allowing an unlawful decision to subsist.Thirdpartyrights are always engaged by challenges to planningpermissions.Theway the Court protects such third party rights is to insist that applicationsfor judicial review aremadepromptly.TheNCA actedwith the utmost promptness: the planning permission was granted on 16 September 2021; the application for leavewasissuedon30September2021;and the planningpermissionwas stayed by the Court on14 October2021.

¶ [75] InmyviewitwasnotfortheNCCtoinviteorrequiretheCPAtomakean applicationunder s.41(4).AsIhavefound,thesectionwas invoked bytheDOE/NCCexpressingitsviewsintheway thatitdid anditwasthen a mandatoryrequirementfortheCPAtohavemadean applicationunder s.41(4). In choosing not to do so, it acted unlawfully.Although quoted earlier, it is useful to be reminded of s.41(1) which states: "Generalobligations - 41.(1)Subject tosubsections (2),(3)and (4),every entity shall comply with the provisions ofthisLawandshallensurethatitsdecisions,actionsandundertakingsareconsistent withanddonotjeopardisetheprotection andconservationofaprotectedareaorany protectedspecies orits critical habitat asestablished pursuant to thisLaw."

¶ [76] TheNCA is clear, every entity shall comply with the provisions of theNCA.It seems to me that as argued by the Applicant, the natural consequence of the CPA breaching the terms of the NCA in respect of the Application in the way that it did and thereby actingunlawfully is to render its subsequentdecisioninrelation to theApplication anullity.On thatbasis,its decision togrant planningpermission to theInterestedPartyis herebyquashed. ## Additionalmatters - 77.At the conclusion of the hearing,I felt that there had been sufficient adjustment of the respective positions of the parties for each to have the opportunity of summarizing their final positions in writing.ImadeitclearthatI didnotwanttheretobeanyfurtherargumentandexpectedthose submissions tobeconfided tomatters thathad been argued.Initsclosingsubmissions theCPA reiterated an issuewhichiswhat it describes as a statutory conflictbetween theDPA and NCCin 29 [1969] 2 AC 147. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal <!-- image --> that a directive by the NCC to the CPApursuant to s.41(5)(b)would contravene s.1.2of the DevelopmentPlan formulated under the DPA,a conflict which by virtue of s.51(2)of the DPA whichisasavingssection,shouldbereferredtoCabinetforresolution.It alsoreiterated aquestion under s.9(6)of thePublicAuthoritiesActwhichprovides thatpublicor civil servantboard membersshall notbeentitled tovote orthe CPA says chair anyboard ofa public authority.On this basisit saysthat theDirector cannot lawfully exercise thepowers of the entireNCC and takeit upon herself to refuse permission under s.41(5)(b). Neither issue was argued before me in any substantivewaybutIwill dealbelowwith thequestionof theroleof theDirector asit isrelevant to the questionof delegationwhichI havebeen asked to consider. ## Delegation generally and meaning of "direct"

¶ [78] The one issue that had been canvassed in some detail by thepartiesprior to and during the hearing butwhich ultimatelywasnotdeterminativein thiscase,is the question of thedelegationof powers by theNCCto theDirector.Asmentioned earlier,theNCC and CPA haverequested that I consider the issue because it islikely to arise again in thefuture andwill thereforebenefitfrom review.

¶ [79] Therelevantlawinrelationtodelegationisthat: A discretionarypowermust,ingeneralbeexercisedonlybytheublicauthoritytowhich ithasbeencommitted.Itisawell-knownprincipleoflawthatwhenapowerhasbeen conferredto apersonincircumstancesindicatingthattrustisbeingplacedinhis individualjudgement anddiscretion,hemustexercisethatpowerpersonallyunlesshe has been expressly empowered to delegate it to another."30

¶ [80] Section3(13) hasbeen referred to above on a number of occasions andprovides expresslyfor the delegation of anyof thefunctions of theNCCto theDirector other than themaking of orders or thegiving of directives.

¶ [81] The Respondent approaches the question of delegation startingwith s.3(12)(i) NCA which provides howtheNCCmayexerciseitspowersundertheNCA: "TheCouncil,subjecttoanydirectionsoftheCabinet,maymakeordersandguidance notesandissuedirectivesforthepurposeofgivingeffect to theprovisionsof thisLaw - 81.1 Section3(13)NCAprovideswhattheNCCmaydelegate totheDirector: TheCouncilmaydelegateanyofitsfunctions,otherthanthemakingoforders andtheissuingofdirectives,totheDirectorortoanycommitteeorsubcommitteeofitsmembers" 30DeSmith's Judicial Review,8thedn,para5-159. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal <!-- image --> - 81.2 TheRespondent refers to s.3(2) of the InterpretationAct (1995 Revision)which provides that every Act shall be applied according to the plain reading.Section 12(1) of the InterpretationActprovides that expressionsdefined shall have themeanings assigned to them unless there is anything in the subject or context repugnant to, or inconsistent with suchmeaning.Section12(3) oftheInterpretationAct provides: Where awordis definedinaLaw or anyregulations,otherparts ofspeech andgrammaticalvariationsofthatword,andcognateexpressions,shallhave correspondingmeaningsinthatLaworthoseregulations." - 81.3 As set out above, s.2NCA defines "direction" anddirective"but does not define "guidance notes"", "direct" or "order". The Respondent's position is that in this context, "order"means to command;to direct authoritatively(a person to do something)per the Oxford English Dictionary.The Respondent highlights the distinctionbetween "directions""directives""orders"and"guidance"."Directions"are reserved exclusively to Cabinet and therefore theNCC could not enjoythe ability to issue a"direction",let alone delegate the same to theDirector.It says that "directives"and"orders"are"rules"that are required to be followed."Guidance",it says,is different. Guidance should not contain "directives" but should be instructive, to explain, procedures for consultation. - 81.4 TheRespondentreferstothecaseofBovaleLtdvSecretaryofStateforCommunities and Local Government and others3′ which dealt with the difference between"guidance"and "direction".Stanley Burnton LJ said at page 2299 paragraph 78:""direction"in the statute isusedinthesenseof,to use oneof thedefinitionsintheOxfordEnglishDictionaryan instructionhowtoproceed oract;anordertobecarriedout,a precept".In otherwords, it is orincludesmandatoryprovisions." - 81.5 The Respondent says that s.3(13) must be construed in the context of s.3which sets out the functionsof theNCC.The enumerated functions set out in s.3 include noreference to directing the CPA to refuse planningpermission.It argues that the authority to delegate is restricted to theNCC's s.3(12) function of issuing"guidance notes"and not the NCC's discretion to approve or direct refusal of planning permission under s.41(5). The function of issuing"guidance notes"is that theybe an explanatory guide,not a directive or order.It followsthatunders.3(13)theNCCcannotdelegatetotheDirectorthefunctiontodirect ororder theCPA torefuseplanningpermission. - 81.6 If there is ambiguity in the meaning of"direction","directive"and"guidance notes"under theNCA,thenperthe decision ofRamsay-Hale,J.,inAnnetteDianeEdenAndradev 31 [2009]1 W.L.R. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal <!-- image --> PatriceLeannaFrederickof18August2020,theRespondentsaysthatrecoursetoHansard may be had in orderto discern themischief aimed at orthe legislativeintention lying behind the ambiguous or obscure words.It is submitted by the Respondent thatHansardwill evidence thatParliamentwascareful andmindful astotheusethewords"orders"and "directives""and"guidance notes"throughout theNCA.

¶ [82] TheApplicant'sposition is that s.3(13) is structured by startingwith an unlimitedpower of delegation("any of its functions')before carving out"the makingoforders and the issuingof directives"Accordingly,it says,the question of constructionis whether theexercise of the s.41(5) powerconstitutesthemakingofanorderortheissuingofadirective,soastobecarvedoutofthe general powerof delegation.

¶ [2] 82.1 TheApplicantsays that a superficialglance atsection 41(5)might suggest that thepower involves the"issuing ofa directive"because it uses the words"the Council shall so direct"

¶ [3] 82.2 However, s.41(5) does not use the words"issue a directive".The Applicant argues that if thelegislative drafterhadintended that as.41(5)(b)refusal of approval should have the legal consequences ofa"directive",then it would have been easyforhim or her to use the term"directive"Forexample,ratherthan statetheCouncil shallso direct theoriginating authority,thedraftercould easilyhavestated"theCouncil shallissuesucha directiveto the originating authority"TheApplicantrefers to examplesof where the drafter had no difficulty using the term"directive"when that is what he or she meant.The fact that the drafter didnotusethe term"directive"ins.41(5)(b)indicates that sucharefusalisnot intended to constitute a"directive".

¶ [4] 82.3 Moreover,theApplicant argues,the process of statutory constructionrequireswords tobe interpreted incontext.TheApplicant relies onLordSteyn in R(Westminster City Council) vNationalAsylumSupportService,wherehe said: "..language in all legal texts conveys meaning according to the circumstances in whichitwasused.Itfollowsthatthecontextmustalwaysbeidentifiedand consideredbeforetheprocessofconstructionorduringit". - 82.4The Applicant contends that the context in which the terms"direct"and"directive"are used in theNCA shows that a decision to"direct the originating authority"under s.41(5)(b) is not a directive within the meaning of s.3(13). It argues that it is perfectly clear 32 [2002] 1 WLR 2956, para.5. 220823National ConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal <!-- image --> from the language,structure and purpose oftheNCA as a whole that a s.41(5) requirement to refuse permission is not "the making of an order"or "the issuing of a directive".

¶ [83] As to thelanguage,structure andpurposeof theNCA,theNCCmakes thefollowingpoints:

¶ [2] 83.1 Section41(5)provides for theNCC to make an individual decision on a one-off action by an entity.Therequirement for an individual decision arises whenever the proposed action islikelytohave an adverseeffect on aprotected areaorcriticalhabitat.Insomecases the adverseeffectwillbemajor(andtherebygiverisetostrategicconcernsonthepartofthe NCC).However,in other cases the adverse effect will be comparatively minor. For example,the discharge of pathogens at a level that harmswildlife or the discharge ofwaste that harms the aestheticvalue of an area.Therewill inevitablybe a vastnumber of actions proposed by entitieswhich are likely to have minor adverse effects on a protected area or critical habitat.

¶ [3] 83.2 By contrast, the term"directive"is used in the NCA in relation to the setting of overarching rules and procedures(which are then tobe applied toindividual decisions) rather than to the making of the individual decisions themselves.The prohibition on delegating the makingoforders and theissuing of directivescontainedin s.3(13)isimmediatelypreceded by a list of examples at s.3(12) of the kinds of things that "orders, guidance notes and directives"may cover.The list indicates that directives are intended to set out the rules or criteria andprocedures tobe applied toindividual decisions.For example,"criteria for evaluatingproposalsfor theestablishmentandmanagementofprotected areas (s.3(12)(b)) and"procedures for determining the circumstances underwhich permits and licences.."(s.3(12)(f).

¶ [4] 83.3 The list of things that"orders,guidance notes and directives"may coverexpresslyrefers to"procedures forconsultationby entities pursuant to section 41(3)"(s.3(12)(i).The list conspicuously does not include the making of individual decisions under s.41(5).

¶ [5] 83.4 Section2provides thatLaw'includes anyregulation,directive,order,direction and management or conservationplan given,made or adopted under this Law".Lawhas the characterofgoverningrulesratherthanindividual decisions.

¶ [6] 83.5 The Applicant argues,the NCA repeatedly draws a distinction between "making a directive" and directing something. Thus, for example: s.11(4) provides, in relation to directivescontainedinamanagementplan: "TheCouncil shall report themakingofaninterim directiveunder subsection(3)to the Cabinetandthedirectiveshallceasetohaveeffectonthecommencementofamanagement planfortheprotected areaconcernedoratsuchearliertimeastheCouncilortheCabinet maydirect" <!-- image --> - 83.6 TheApplicant says that itwould,to say the least,be an odd use of language to conclude that directing the cessation of a directive itself constitutes the issuing of a directive. - 83.7 Section 12(2), which concerns the making of an order toremove the designation of any land as aprotected area,provides:"Anorderby the Cabinet underthissectionshall include reasonsforremovingthedesignationofany landasaprotectedarea andmaydirectthe Counciltoidentifyasimilarareaundersection9toreplacetheareafromwhichthe designation has beenremovedwhere theCouncil hasnot already doneso".Thus,an ""order"can"direct"a person to do something. Given that an order is distinct from a directive,this again says the Applicant indicates that the legislative drafter drew a distinction between decisionswhich servetodirectsomeone to do something and"issuing adirective" - 83.8 Section 31(1) provides that:"A person who contravenes this Law commits an offence". Section 2 provides that"person"includes any entity, such as the CPA.As set out above, "Law includes any regulation, directive, order, direction and management or conservation plan given, made or adopted under this Law".It follows that it is a criminal offence for the CPA to contravene a directive.Again,the Applicant says this indicates that directives are intended tosetoutgenerally applicable rulesrather than individual decisions.If the CPA wereright toconcludethat arefusaltogiveconsentunders.41(5)(b) constitutes a directive, thatwould havewhat theApplicantdescribes asthe startling consequence that agrant of planningpermissionbytheCPA contrary toavalid s.41(5)(b) decisionwould constitute a criminaloffence. - 83.9 Under s.41(5)(a), the NCC may require the CPA to refuse to grant planning permission unless certain conditions are imposed (the NCC may"agree to the proposed action subject tosuchconditionsasitconsidersreasonable,inwhichcasetheoriginatingauthorityshall ensure that theproposed action ismadesubjecttosuchconditions').Thereisno suggestion that the NCC's function under s.41(5)(a) involves the issuing of a directive, because there is no word (like"direct")which bears any resemblance to the word "directive".The Applicant says that it would very odd if the power to require outright refusal (s.41(5)(b)) involves the issuing of a directive,but the power to require refusal unless certain conditionsareimposed(s.41(5)(a)) does not.TheApplicant suggests that this strongly tells against taking the word "direct"in s.41(5)(b) to mean "issue a directive" <!-- image --> - 83.10If the s.41(5)(b) power involves the issuing of a directive and the s.41(5)(a) power does not, then the Applicant contends that the s.41(5)(a)power could be delegated to the Director, but the s.41(5)(b) power could not. Thus, the Director could be charged with considering a request for approval from the CPA under s.41(4).She could (under delegated powers)require the CPA torefusepermission unless it was subject toa condition(for example)that noworkcould commenceuntil theCPAhadreceived and approveda coastal engineer. However, on the CPA's case, she could not require outright refusal under s.41(5)(b)power without convening a full meeting ofall 13 voting members ofthe Council. Thiswould impose an undue burden on theNCC.It would mean that every single time the NCCwasrequired to consider anyindividual requestfor approval from anentity,nomatter how minor, theNCCwould have to convene a full meeting of theNCC.That,in turn,the Applicant sayswould be contrary tothe interests of those seeking approval,such as the CPA and the InterestedParty,because theywould have towait until it was possible to conveneafull meetingoftheNCC. - 83.11 There is no need to read "direct"(in s.41(5)(b) to mean the giving of a"directive"in ordertosafeguardtherightsofthosewhoseektotake actionwhichwouldbelikelytohave anadverseeffecton aprotected areaoronthecriticalhabitatofaprotectedspecies.This is because such persons are protected by the right of appeal to the Cabinet and thereafter therightof appeal to the Grand Court whichisgiven by s.41(6)and s.39 of theAct. ## Discussion and analysis - 84.I can add to the list above by referring to s.42(1) which provides that: "At thetime that theCouncil agrees toaproposed actionsubjecttoconditionsimposed pursuanttosection41(5)（a),itmay,initsdiscretion,directthatascheduleofinspections be carried out byor onbehalf of theDirectorto ensurecompliancewith theconditions."

¶ [85] Additionally,nmyview,it isinstructive toreviewtheuseintheNCAoftheword"order'.Section 2 defines a"cease and desist order"as an orderunders.30(1);s.30(1) provides that: TheDirectormay,withoutprejudicetoanyotherproceedingsunderthisLaw,issuean orderinwritingto anyperson—（a)whoperforms anyactwhichwouldbeanoffence underthisLaw,orpermitsanyotherpersontodoso,requiringhimtoceaseanddesistthe unlawful act forthwith or by such date as may be specified in the order.."

¶ [86] It is interesting that the NCA gives this express power to the Director to make an order, notwithstanding theprovisions of s.3(13)whichmeans thatit is not afunction that theNCCcould delegate. <!-- image -->

¶ [87] There are a number ofinstanceswhere sections oftheNCA provide for the Cabinet tomake orders. For example, s.7 provides that: "TheCabinetmay,afterconsultationwith theCouncil and adjoining landowners,by order designateanyareaofCrownLandorCaymanwatersasaprotectedareainaccordance withthisLaw."

¶ [88] In the context of designation of an areaforprotected status,section8(4)providesfor Cabinet makingaprotected areaorder.Section16(1)providesthat: "Subject to thefollowingprovisions of this section,theCouncil,with the approval of Cabinet,maymakebyordersuchmodificationstoSchedule1asitconsidersnecessaryor desirable."

¶ [89] Having considered the respective arguments of the parties in relation to themeaning of"direct"I am ofthe view that when reading its use in the context oftheNCA as awhole as described by Lord SteyninR(WestminsterCity Council)vNational AsylumSupportService,itcannotberegardedas being the equivalent of a direction,directive or an order. TheNCC has wide powers and its functions asset outin s.3(9)include: "(n) carrying outsuch otherfunctions and duties as arespecified under thisLaw and the regulations." The Respondent suggests that the functions set out in s.3(9) contain no reference to directing the CPA to refuse planning permission. It is correct to say that there is no specific reference to that function but it clearly is a function of the NCC and therefore is covered by s.3(9)(n).

¶ [90] Directives are defined and include in s.3(12) (but are not limited to) covering matters such as setting criteria,measures and procedures which are,albeit within the context of the NCA,of general application as opposed to relating to specific individuals or issues.Similarly, guidance notes are expressed toberelating to the same generic issues.It is also important to note that the section makes it clear that the exercise of theNCC'spower toissue orders,directives,andguidance notes is subject to any directions of the Cabinet. The functions of theNCC as set out in s.3(9) are not so limited.

¶ [2] 91.AsI have mentioned earlier,I have reviewed the relevantextract of the Official Hansard Report and it is clear that a great deal of timewas spent on the precisewords used in theNCA.In relation to s.41(2)for example,the wordingwas changed so that instead of referring to theNCC issuing directivestoentitiesinrelationtotheirdutiestoconsult,itreferstoguidancenotes. Now,MadamSpeaker,[clause]41,thattroublingclausethattheMinistertoldushehas neutered.Ithinkhehaschangedittoread..deletingthewords"directivesgiving"and insertingthewords"guidancenotes"Iam assuming that thatisforeveryplacethat "directives"is placed in41.Replace it with"guidance notes" tomake it advisory."33 <!-- image -->

¶ [92] Althoughnotdefined,orders alsoseemtobefairlyclearly characterizedintheNCAandrelate to decisionsorordersofCabinet,specificordersmadebytheNCCandceaseanddesistordersmade bytheDirector.

¶ [93] I do not think therefore that there is any ambiguity about themeaning and usage ofthe terms orders, directives,andguidancenotes.It alsoseemstome tomakesense that theNCCcannotdelegate orders and theissuingofdirectives.Asmentioned earlier,inthe contextof theNCA,orders are either issued by theNCC(subject to decisions of Cabinet),Cabinet itself or by way of cease and desistordersissued bytheDirector.Inmyview,in none ofthoseinstanceswould it bepossiblefor theNCCtodelegate the relevantfunction.Directives are similarly subjectto thedecisions of Cabinet.

¶ [94] ItisalsonotablethatwhenintroducingtheNCBforitssecondreadingtheMinsterdescribedthe roleoftheNCCasfollows: Inrespecttodecisionslikedesignatingprotectingareas,approvingspeciesconservation plans,andthereforealso approving any criticalhabitat areas,thosedecisionsare exclusivelyforCabinet.TheCouncil doesnotmakeanydecisioninthatrespect.Itmakes recommendationsanditgivesadvicetoCabinetandthosedecisionsaremade.So,the Councilispurely atechnical advisorybodyforthevastmajorityof thetime.Theonlytime, MadamSpeaker,thattheCouncilwouldhaveanyrealauthorityisinrelationto applicationswhichhaveanimpactonprotected areasorcriticalhabitat areasthatCabinet hasalreadygonethroughwiththeassistanceofasignificantpublicconsultationprocess andmadeadecisionthatthoseshouldbeprotectedareasandcriticalhabitatareas.So, theCouncil'sonlyrealauthorityundertheBillisforthepurposeofprotectingareasthat Cabinet has already deemed should be protected with the assistance of the public."34

¶ [95] It is thepowers such as those under s.41 that enable theNCC to protect protected areas or critical habitat.Inviewofthesignificanceofthes.41powersitseemstome that thefact that thecarveout in s.3(13) only refers toorders and directives is intentional.That leads to the conclusion that asthe s.41 powers must fall within s.3(9)(n),they must alsofall within thefunctions that are capable of being delegated in accordance with s.3(13). 33 Hansard 2013/14Session,11December2013,page408. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal 34 Hansard 2013/14 Session, 11 December 2013, page 395. ## Conclusion as to meaning of"direct"

¶ [96] In myview,it isnot correct to suggest that the word"direct"canfall within directives,directionor orders.In my view,a common sense reacting of s.41 means that the word direct must beread as the equivalent ofinstruct"or,asused in s.43(1)in the context of environmental impact assessments,"require".In my opinion to read it otherwise makes no sense. ## Delegationofdiscretion - 97.That,however is not the end of the argument over delegation.Regardless of the wording of the NCA,theRespondent argues that it is a general principle of public law that where a public body has a decision-making power,it must exercise that power itself and it cannot approach its task in such a manner that results in it abdicating its decision-making function in favour of another body. It says that this is true both for the NCC, and the CPA.

¶ [98] therelevantplanning authorityrefused permission on groundsof the objectionmaintainedby the Minister of Agriculture, even though it had no objection on either amenity or highway grounds. It washeld that the duty todecidewhetherplanningpermission shouldbegrantedhadbeenentrusted byParliament to theMinisterof Housingwho as a result ofaself-createdruleof policy hadwrongly fettered himselfinsuchwaythatitwasnot hewhomadethedecisionbutitwasineffectdelegated to theMinisterofAgriculture.Theunlawfulnessof the actionwasboth asafetteringofdiscretion and as anunlawful delegation.WillisJ, said(atpage1241): Everythingelsemightpoint tothedesirabilityofgrantingpermission,butby applyingand actingonhisstatedpolicyIthinktheMinisterhasfetteredhimselfinsuchawaythatin thiscaseitwasnothewhomadethedecisionforwhichParliamentmadehimresponsible.

¶ [99] TheRespondent alsoreferred toNational Trust forThe Cayman Islands and ConnollyvPlanning AppealsTribunal and Humphreys(Cavman)Limited°,whichwas adecisionoftheCayman Islands Grand Court in which Sanderson J.was asked to consider,inter-alia,whether the CPA had unlawfullydelegatedits dutytoreach anindependentdecision bygrantingpermissionsubject to the approvalofanenvironmentalreport bytheDOE.SandersonJ.held thatitwasthefunction of the CPAtoconsiderwithinthescopeoftherelevantDevelopmentPlan,allrelevantmatters affecting its discretion,includingenvironmental aspects.SandersonJ,stated(atpage540): 35[1970]1WLR1231. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal 36[2000]CILR521. <!-- image --> <!-- image --> "Thefunction of theCentral PlanningAuthority is to consider,within the scopeof the DevelopmentPlan,allofthelong-andshort-termeffectsthataproposeddevelopment couldhaveontheresidentsoftheseIslands.Itmustconsider thingssuch asnoise, congestion,appearance,disruption,inconvenience,additionaljobs,economicgrowth, tourismandallotherfactorswhichitbelieveswillaffectthosewholive,workandvisit here.Itmustthenexerciseitsbestjudgmenttodetermineifthereareenvironmental impactsand,ifso,howsignificanttheyareandwhethertheycanbeminimizedorreduced insomeway.Itmustalsoconsiderwhatenvironmentalimpactisjustifiedgiventhe advantagesorbenefitsoftheproposeddevelopment.Simplyput,itistodecidewhatisin thepublic'sbestinterest,giventheparticularcircumstancesofeachcase.DidtheCentral PlanningAuthoritydo thathereordidit delegatethatdecision-makingauthority?Inmy judgment,itdiddelegatethedecision-makingauthoritythatitwasrequiredtoexerciseand accordinglyitsdecisionmustbesetaside...Inthiscase,theDepartmentofEnvironment wasbeingaskedtoperformthefunctionofdeterminingif anypotentialnegativeimpacton theenvironmentwasjustified,consideringthebenefitsofthedevelopment.Thatisnotits function."

¶ [100] Finally,the Respondent referred to the dicta of Hercules,Ag CJ in Ebanks v Central Planning Authority², was applied in the National Trust case.Hercules, Ag CJ said at page 211: "TheCentralPlanningAuthorityis a statutorybodychargedwith all legal authority to dischargeitsfunctionsundertheDevelopmentandPlanningLaw.Assuchitmustacton matterscomingbeforeitindependentlyofadviceorcommentfromanyotherbodyor authority.Anydecisionmadebythisbodymustbeitsownindependentdecision uninfluencedbyanyoutsideinfluencewhatsoever.Therecanbenoabdicationofits authority..IhavesearchedtheDevelopmentandPlanningLaw,albeitwithoutany PlanningAuthorityto abdicateisstatutoryrightstoany otherauthority or anyother body".

¶ [101] It is submitted bytheRespondent that thereisnoexpress orimplied authority to delegatetheNCC's discretionundersection41(5)oftheNCA.

¶ [102] The Interested Party reiterated some of the submissions of the Respondent which I have not repeated.

¶ [3] 102.1It submits that s.3(13) must be construed strictly.Mr Lowe on behalf of the Interested Party cites Noon v Matthews38 in which Beatson LJ observed in that there is "a strong delegation'MrLowe alsorepeats thebasicposition that as ageneral matter of publiclaw a public body which is granted a decision-making power cannot delegate the same39. 37 [1980-83] CILR 207. 39 Lavender &amp;Son vMinistry of Housing, and De Smith 8th edn 5-159 to 5-164. 220823National ConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthority etal-JudgmentFinal 38[2014] EWHC 4330Admin. <!-- image --> - 102.2It is submitted on behalf of theInterested Party that s.41(5)(b) is not merely about the exercise ofthe"function"of directing the CPA towithhold the grant of permission;it also requires theNCC tomake a judgment about whether ornot the adverse effect is incapable of being mitigated.This,theInterested Party says,is a decision-making power which can be the subject to appeal or legal challenge. - 102.3In excepting from thepower of delegation"themaking of orders and the issuing of directives,s.3(13)is likelytohavebeen concernedwith thepowers and dutieswhich affectprivate partiesso that theNCCwouldremain accountable as a publicbodybyway ofjudicialreview. - decision-makingpowersunder s.41(5)(b)because thatwould suggest a legalchallenge wouldbemadebyreferenceto thedecision-makingofsomeoneotherthantheNCC. - 102.5It argues that the legislation, taken as a whole,points to the importance of placing strict limits on the power to delegate:It says that theNCCwas established under s.3(1) as a statutory body to carry out important functions under the NCA as listed in s.3(9).It argues thatitisno accidentthatthelawwaspassedshortly aftertheConstitutionwasbroughtinto effect which itself imposed an environmentalduty4o.By enacting the NCA,the Governmentsoughttocomplywithitsconstitutionaldutytotheenvironment.Itisnot surprising theInterestedParty says that in such an important body,the legislature would havesoughttolimit thepower of delegation. - 102.6Similarly,it says that it would be expected that a statutorybody designed to supervise such importantlegislationwas establishedandorganizedtomakedecisionsthatwere transparent and accountable.Accordingly,theNCCconsists of9members(sees.3(2))and decisions of the NCC must be made by a majority of members (see s.3(4)). Its meetings must be public (see s.3(6)).Delegation,theInterestedParty argues,detracts from this. - 102.7TheNCA goes to somelengths to manage the way in which the NCC exercises powers and carries out functions.Section3(13) aboveis one of anumber of provisions dealingwith theNCC'sabilityto engageotherstodoitswork. - 102.8It argues that the NCC's ability to engage third party agencies to exercise its powers is subject toagreement by Cabinet.Thus s.3(10)provides that: "3(10)In carrying outitspowers and duties theCouncil may,subject to any directionsoftheCabinet,enterintoagreementsandotherco-operative arrangementswithregionalagencies,interstateagencies,voluntaryorganisations andotherpersonsforthepurposeofthisLawandtheConventions." 40 Section 18 of Part 1 of The Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal ISL <!-- image --> - 102.9Section 3(11) then specifies the types of arrangements that may be made under s.3(10) whichdonot on theirfacepermit theNCC to delegate thecarrying outof itsgeneral decision-making or the specific powers allocated to it under s.41. - 102.10TheNCA also then allows arrangements tobemade for the exercise of specific powers. (12) TheNCC,subject to anydirectionsoftheCabinet,maymakeorders and guidancenotesandissuedirectivesforthepurposeofgivingeffecttothe provisions ofthisLaw.." - 102.11 These it is argued do not include the power of determining the matters which are left to the NCCtoresolveunders.41(5)NCA. - 103.In response to the various points made bythe Interested Party the Applicant says that the contention that:ItcannotbepossibleunderSection3(13)oftheNCAtodelegatethemajordecision-making powers underSection41(5)(b)of theNCAbecausethatwouldsuggest alegal challengewould be madebyreferencetothedecision-makingof someone other than theNCC"ismisconceived: - 103.1First, the Applicant says that such an argument misunderstands the public law nature of delegation.It argues that a decision taken on behalf of theNCCby theDirector under delegated powers is, in law, a decision of the NCC, not a decision of the Director. Any legal challengewould beagainst theNCC,not theDirector. - thatwherea publicbodyisvestedwitha decision-makingpoweritmustordinarilyexercise that poweritself.However,it points out that,asImentioned earlier,that is subject to any express statutory power of delegation41. The NCC does not contend that it has an inherent power to delegate itsfunctions or that a power of delegation should be implied intos.41(5) - 103.3 The Applicant argues that contrary to the Interested Party's assertion, there is no principle ofrestrictiveinterpretationofanexpressstatutorypowerof delegation.It contendsthatthe Interested Party's reliance on NoonvMatthews [2014] EWHC 4330(Admin) is misplaced becauseBeatsonLJwasaddressingthequestionofwhetherstatutory provisionsimpliedly authorise delegation'42. This case is concerned with an express statutory power of delegation. 41 And other well-recognised exceptions such as the Carltona (Carltona Ltdv Commissioners ofWorks[1943]2 All E.R.560)principleunderwhichthe courtshaverecognized that"the duties imposed onministers and thepowers giventoministersarenormallyexercisedundertheauthorityoftheministersbyresponsibleofficialsofthe department.Public businesscould not be carriedonif that werenot thecase"andDe Smith'sJudicial Review7th ednpara5-185. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal 42 Paragraph 26. ## Discussion andanalysis - 104.The cases cited by the Respondent and Interested Party do not deal with situations in which there was a clearstatutorypowerto delegatefunctions and therehad beenpurported express delegation ofsuchfunctions.As such,I donot thinkthat they advancetheposition of theRespondent or the Interested Party. - 105.I return to the point that I made earlierwhich is that thelegislaturewas cognizant of thefact that the NCC has limited authority,largely confined to s.41.When providingfor an expresspower to delegate itsfunctionsno effortwasmade tolimit that power beyond thematters already discussed. - 106.As the Applicant has highlighted, in s.39(1) (e) there is a specific right of appeal to Cabinet against a decision undersection41 and that appeals arestated tobe against thedecisionof theNCC.In that way,Cabinet retains itskeyrole in overseeing the NCC and,in turn,the protection of the environment.Totheextentthatthedelegationofthes.41functionincludes theexerciseof discretion,I am satisfied that the intention behind andeffect of s.3(13)was toprovide for the delegationof theexerciseof thatdiscretion to theDirector and thatdecision is tobe treated as one takenby the NCC itself.It is therefore the NCC that is therespondent to any appeal.The delegation to theDirector asevidencedinthe CaymanIslands Gazette43confirms that theDirectorshall report to theNCC on the exercise of herpowers on a regular(ordinarily)monthly basis and,in thatway, theNCCappears toretain aclosesupervisoryroleinrelation tothe activitiesoftheDirector,who asIhavestressedonanumberofoccasionsis(alongwithanumberofherstaff) amemberofthe NCCitself.Inviewof therightsofappealunder s.39,itclearlyisincumbentupon theNCCto recorditsdecisionsandensure thatthoseof theDirector arerecordedinacarefuland thorough manner. - 107.In view of the integral roles that the Director and the DOE have in the NCC, I do not agree with thesuggestionthat theexerciseofsuchdiscretioncannotbedelegated totheDirector.Itseemsto me thatthedecision to exercisepowersunders.41(5)requiringtheimpositionofconditionsona proposed action or a direction to an entity to refuse to agree to or refuse to proceed with proposed actioncannotsensiblybeseparatedfrom thecommunicationofthoseconditionsorthedirectingof the entity.Theyare,ina senseinterwoven,and anyexercise of discretion must,inmyview,be capable of being delegated as part of the functions under s.4144. 43Discussed inmoredetail below. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal 44 See e.g. Mungoni v Attorney General of Northern Rhodesia Privy Council Appeal no 14 of 1959. <!-- image --> ## DelegationtotheDirector - 108.The final point in relation to delegation is whether functions can be delegated to the Director herself.

¶ [109] Ireferred earliertothe compositionof theNCC and the significance that theDirectorandspecified membersoftheDOEhaveinthecompositionoftheNCC.Thereseemstome tobenodoubt that the intention of the legislaturewas tomake theDirector andspecified members of theDOE an integral part of the NCC and its decision making process, albeit not a majority of the members given a vote. - 110.The Respondent makes reference to the Public Authorities Act (2020 Revision) (PAA), which provides uniform regulation of the management and governance of public authorities. In its comments onmy draft judgment,counsel for theNCC stated that theNCCis not infact a"public authority"which is defined ins.2 of the PAA as being either a statutory authority or agovernment company. In turn,"statutory authority"is defined as: "an entity established bya law to carry out functionswhichare capable under that law,of beingfunded,partlyorentirely，bymoneyprovidedbytheCabinet,andforwhichthe GovernorortheCabinethasthepowerto appointordismissthemajorityof theboardor other governing body."

¶ [111] TheNCC says that it is notfundedby Cabinet.This is not anissue thatwas arguedin any detail beforeme and there is no evidence in relation to the status of the NCC.Regardless, as my decision belowexplains,evenif theNCCis apublicauthority,I donotregard thePAAasimposing any restrictionsonitspowertodelegatetotheDirector.

¶ [112] Under the PAA as of the 1 June 2019, all statutory authorities have become"public authorities" andaretocomplywiththePAA,includingthatpublicorcivil servantboardmembersmaynotvote orchairanyboardofa public authority45,andthat boardresolutionsmust bedeterminedbya simple majority of those members entitled tovote,which excludes all civil servants46.TheRespondent saysthattheDirector,acivil servant,cannotlawfullyexercisethepowersoftheNCCand takeit upon herself to refuse permission under s.41(5)(b) of the NCA as that would not be concordant withtheclearlegislatedintentofthePAA. 45 Section 9(6) PAA. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal 46Section 17 PAA. <!-- image --> ## Discussion and analysis - 113.The purpose of the PAA is set out in s.4which states that it is: (1).toprovideuniformregulation ofthemanagement andgovernanceofpublic authorities." ## but makes it clear that: (2)NothinginthisLawshall beconstrued asaffectingtheprincipalfunctionsofanypublic authorityandshallnotaffecttheindependentregulatorydecisionmakingprocesswith regard to theissueorsuspensionof licenses,andany otherregulatorydecision."

¶ [114] Whilst apublicorcivilservantboardmembershall notbeentitled tovoteasamemberof theboard of a public authority47. ThePAA does provide for the appointment by a board of a chief executive officer48who shall alsobe anon-votingmember of theboard.A chief executiveofficerhaswide powers as set out in s.31(2)PAA including"any other responsibilities as provided in writing by the board49.The PAA does not place any restrictions onwhomaybe eligible tobe appointed to such a role.

¶ [2] 115.A chief executive officer has a statutory power of delegation and can delegate any of the responsibilities that they are given under s.31(2)to a staff member.50There is no limitation on who thatstaff member may be.

¶ [3] 116.Taking all of that into account, and subject to the question as to the actual status of the NCC, I do notfollow theRespondent'slogicinrelation totherelevanceof thePAAtothequestionof the NCC's statutory power to delegatefunctions to the Director.If thePAA does apply to the NCC, theeffectof thePAAmaywell be that theDirector,aswell as any othercivil servant,is unable to voteas a memberof theboardof theNCC,but thereisnothinginthePAAwhetherexpress or functionstotheDirector.IalsodonotagreethatdelegatingfunctionstotheDirectorisinconsistent withthePAA,Indeed,s.4(2)PAAseemstomakeitclearthattheintentionisthat thePAAshould notstrayintosuchareas.

¶ [4] 117.The nextquestionis whether the delegation hasbeen clearly evidenced.At thehearingIwas advisedbyMrButtlerthattheissueofdelegationtotheDirectorhadmovedonsomewhatfromthe 47 Meaning a statutory authority or government company (PAA s.2). 49 Section 31(2)G) PAA. 48 Section 24 PAA. 50 Section 32 PAA. 220823NationalConservationCouncilvTheCentralPlanningAuthorityetal-JudgmentFinal <!-- image --> ## 118. <!-- image --> point in time atwhich theletter of 24June2021directing the refusal of theApplicationwas sent on theletterhead of theNCCto the CPA.After reviewingvarious documents including minutes of the NCC meetings in2014 and2017in connectionwith that question,MrButtler accepted that,to theextentthattherewasevidenceofthedecisiontodelegateandwhatitwasintendedtodelegate, thatevidencewasbadly drafted anditwasmost definitelyunclear. - At a meeting of theNCC on 21 July 2021 the question of delegation was re-visited and clarified. That decisionwas publicised in theCaymanIslands Gazette on30August 2021 asfollows: ## "DEPARTMENTALNOTICES DIRECTOROFTHEDEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENT Pursuant tosection3(1[3]) of theNational ConservationAct,2013,and asresolved at its GeneralMeetingof21July202[1],theNational ConservationCouncil(the"Council") makesthefollowingdelegationtopromotetheefficient andeffectivefunctioningoftheAct. A.Forthepurposeof thisdelegation,and inkeepingwith the Act,"Director"means the DirectoroftheDepartmentofEnvironmentandthat"Act"means theNational ConservationAct,2013. B.Inkeepingwithsection5of theInterpretationAct (1995Revision),referencetothe "Director"includes any person for the time being,holding or carryingout the duties of thatofficeintheIslands. C.Pursuanttosection3(13)oftheAct,theCouncildelegatestotheDirectorallfunctions andpowersoftheCouncilundersection41oftheAct,includingbutnotlimitedtothe issuingofinstructionsundersection41(5),theimpositionofconditionsundersection 41(5)(a)andbindinginstructionstoanoriginatingauthorityundersection41(5)(b) directingtheoriginating authoritytorefusetoagreetoorrefusetoproceedwith the proposedaction. D.This delegationof functions andpowerstotheDirector undersection3(13)of theAct includes,butis notlimitedtoreceiving,processing,imposingconditions or directing refusalattheDirector'sdiscretion,executingandcommunicatingsuchdecisions/actions. E.TheDirector shallnotsub-delegate anypowers orfunctionsdelegated toherby the Council. F.TheDirectorshall continueto adhereto anyDirectives,GuidanceNotes,Orders, RegulationsorResolutionsoftheCouncilinforceatthetime,andtheprinciplesofnatural justiceandlawful administration.Inthisregard,theDirectorshallalsoensurethat: (i)Theoriginatingentityisnotifiedof theright of apersonaggrievedbyadecisionof the CounciltoappealthatdecisiontotheCabinet,undersection39oftheAct;and ii)ForallmatterslikelytotriggeranEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentoraStrategic EnvironmentalAssessment,theDirectorshallactinaccordancewiththeEIAdirective 2016. G.TheDirectorshall continue toreportall activitiesinrelationto theexerciseof these delegatedfunctions/powerstotheCouncilonaregular(ordinarilymonthly)basis. <!-- image --> H.TheDirectormay consult inrelationto any application,anyrelevant authoritiesor individuals,includingpersons affectedbyorproponentsof theproposedaction."

¶ [119] Soforpresent purposes,thereisno doubt as to what theNCC intends;the evidence of delegation isnow clear and,inmyview,unambiguous. ## Conclusion inrelation torole of Director

¶ [120] On thatbasis,Ifind that section3 (12) does give theNCCpower to delegate itspowers under section41.Iam alsosatisfied thatthere isnothingintheNCAor thePAA(ifrelevant)which preventstheNCCdelegatingsuch powerstotheDirectorand thatsuchdelegation hasbeenclearly implemented by way of the decision of theNCC as evidenced in the Gazette. ## Summary ofconclusions

¶ [121] By way of summary, my findings are as follows:

¶ [2] 121.1The Guidance is lawful and binding.

¶ [3] 121.2 Entities do not have anything other than a very limited discretion under s.41(4),extending nofurtherthanaplainreadingofresponsesfromtheNCCreceivedafterconsultationunder s.41(3).Itisnotforentitiestoconducttheirownenvironmental assessmenttodetermine whether tomakean application under s.41(4).

¶ [4] 121.3 The CPA acted unlawfully in failing to apply to the NCC under s.41(4).

¶ [5] 121.4 The consequence of that is that the decision to grant theApplication was a nullity andis quashed.

¶ [6] 121.5 TheNCAprovidestheNCCwithanexpresspowerofdelegationwhichincludesthe powers under s.41(5).

¶ [7] 121.6It islawful for theNCAtodelegate suchpowersto theDirector.

¶ [122] I have invited theparties tomake submissions on costswhich I will deal with separately. <!-- image --> Hon.MrJustice AlistairWalters ActingJudgeof the Grand Court