Injunction allowed to prevent destruction of archaeological features

Where a public body is given responsibility for performing public functions in a particular area, it is implicit that it may institute proceedings – including seeking an injunction – to protect those interests. The Court of Appeal has considered this issue, allowing an appeal in Natural England v Cooper [2025] EWCA Civ 15; [2025] PLSCS 14. Natural England is a statutory corporation funded by the government. Its powers are conferred by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERCA), which entitles it to bring criminal proceedings and grants it wide powers in the discharge of its general purpose to ensure the conservation, enhancement and management of the natural environment.  The case concerned archaeological features beneath 67 hectares of farmland at Croyde Hoe Farm in Devon, owned by the National Trust and adjacent to a site of special scientific interest. While further investigations were necessary, there were indications of a settlement of the Mesolithic or Neolithic period. Cooper was the tenant of the farm under a yearly tenancy. The agreement reserved to the National Trust all archaeological and heritage features above or under the ground. The Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) (England) (No 2) Regulations SI 2006/2522 also required Cooper to obtain Natural England’s consent – which he had not obtained – to cultivate the land. Natural England was concerned that cultivating the land would damage or destroy any archaeological artefacts. Undeterred by the service of statutory notices and criminal sanctions, Cooper continued to plough and cultivate the land. Natural England sought final injunctive relief to prevent him ploughing approximately 30 hectares of the farmland – nine fields of mostly arable land – without its consent. The National Trust was not a party to the proceedings. The application failed because the judge decided that Natural England lacked power and standing to bring the claim for an injunction in its own name. The claim could only be brought as a relator action with the consent of and in the name of the attorney general. The Court of Appeal disagreed. Rarely will a statute provide expressly that a public body may institute proceedings to protect specific public interests but it is implicit that it may do so – including seeking an injunction – where it is given responsibility for performing public functions in a particular area: see Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority v Robinson [2000] QB 775. Section 13 of NERCA conferred an incidental power on Natural England to apply for an injunction to protect its interest in the discharge of its responsibilities for the environment. Parliament’s imposition on Natural England of responsibilities as regulator under NERCA gave it standing to seek an injunction of the kind sought. Natural England was entitled to a permanent injunction. Louise Clark is a property law consultant