Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport & Ors

16 October 2024

[2024] EWCA Civ 1227

Court of Appeal

Save Stonehenge sued to stop a new road near Stonehenge. The court said the government followed the rules fairly, even though they decided to build the road. The court ruled the government's plan didn't break any international rules about protecting Stonehenge, and it was okay to weigh the benefits of the road against the harm to Stonehenge. The government later cancelled the road project, but the court issued its ruling anyway.

Key Facts

•Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Limited appealed a High Court decision refusing permission for judicial review of the Secretary of State for Transport's decision to grant a development consent order for the A303 road improvement project near Stonehenge.
•The project involved a dual carriageway and a tunnel through the Stonehenge World Heritage Site.
•The Secretary of State's decision was challenged on seven grounds, ultimately reduced to five main issues.
•The Chancellor of the Exchequer subsequently announced the government would not proceed with the project.
•The Court of Appeal decided to proceed with the judgment despite the project's cancellation as the development consent order remained extant.

Legal Principles

Procedural fairness requires a process appropriate to the nature of the decision, statutory framework, and facts. It does not always require an inquisitorial process with an independent expert report.

Common Law Principles of Procedural Fairness

A minister may rely on officials' analysis of evidence, summarized for them; there's no general requirement to provide the underlying data.

National Association of Health Stores v Department of Health [2005] EWCA Civ 154

The minister only needs to consider matters that are 'obviously material' (Wednesbury irrationality test), not every potentially relevant consideration.

R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd.) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] UKSC 52

Section 104(2)(d) of the 2008 Act doesn't override established public law principles; the Secretary of State only needs to consider matters they deem 'important and relevant'.

Planning Act 2008, Section 104(2)(d)

When reviewing a government's interpretation of an unincorporated international treaty, the 'tenability' test applies, considering whether the view was reasonable, not necessarily correct.

R. (on the application of Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60

Articles 4 and 5 of the World Heritage Convention don't prohibit all harm to a World Heritage Site; a balance of competing considerations may be permissible.

World Heritage Convention, Articles 4 & 5

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed on grounds 1 to 5 and 7.

The court found the Secretary of State's process was procedurally fair, his briefing adequate, his interpretation of the World Heritage Convention tenable, and his consideration of the risk of delisting and the NPSNN review rational.

Appeal allowed against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review on ground 4 of the claim.

While leave was granted, the claim itself was dismissed on its merits.

Similar Cases

Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Limited & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport

[2024] EWHC 339 (Admin)

Peak District and South Yorkshire Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport

[2023] EWHC 2917 (Admin)