This appeal concerned the proper interpretation of section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the meaning of ‘conservation’ and the relationship between a Site of Special Scientific Interest and Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 (the Habitats Directive).The SSSI was located along, and inland from, the Suffolk coast between Southwold and Lowestoft. The site included areas protected under the Habitats Directive. At the southernmost end of the SSSI were cliffs which were being eroded by the sea. Residents whose properties were near the cliff edge, including Mr Boggis, formed an organisation which constructed a sacrificial sea defence without planning permission or consent under the coastal protection legislation. Natural England decided to adjust the boundary of the SSSI to reflect the erosion of the cliffs thereby including the property of Mr Boggis and other residents. They objected to the notification of the SSSI because they feared that if confirmed it would prevent them from continuing to replenish the sacrificial sea defence. Natural England considered the objections to the notification of the SSSI and confirmed the designation. The respondents challenged that decision on the grounds that it was wrongly based on the approach that "the process of exposure" of the cliffs was a geological feature of special interest. The judge rejected that ground of challenge, but accepted that the notification and confirmation of the SSSI in respect of the sea defences constituted a "plan" for the purposes of art.6(3) of the Directive giving rise to an obligation to make an assessment which had not been carried out. He therefore concluded that the SSSI was unlawful so far as it applied to the coastline area. Mr Boggis crossappealed on the ground he lost on. The Court of Appeal held that Natural England had not wrongly thought that the act, or process, of exposure of the cliffs was a geological feature. The Court of Appeal held that the notification and confirmation of the SSSI did not constitute a "project" within the meaning of art.6(3) of the Habitats Directive. Notification of an SSSI was not itself a plan, but a means of ensuring that land use and other plans took proper account of environmental features of special interest. In any event, even if the notification of the SSSI was a plan or project for the purposes of art.6(3), there was no breach of that article because there was no evidence that there was any real risk to the special protection area which required an assessment. The Court said that even if there had been a breach of the Directive, it would have been appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion not to quash the confirmation of the SSSI considering that the expert evidence was that maintaining the sea defences would have no significant physical effects; the purpose of the proceedings was not to secure the protection of the special protection area, but to enable the continued replenishment of the respondents' sacrificial sea defences; and the construction of those defences and their continued replenishment were not lawful.