Bentley Pauncefoot Parish Council v Redditch Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 456 (Admin)
Mair Bain v Secretary of State for Transport
27 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2216 (Admin)
High Court
Someone challenged a government decision to build new roads. The court said the government made the decision correctly, even though some of the information used was a bit old. The government showed it considered all the important facts. Extra evidence wasn't needed.
Key Facts
- •Claimant challenges the A38 Derby Junctions Development Consent Order 2023 under section 118(1) of the Planning Act 2008.
- •Ground 1 alleges unlawful reliance on an outdated economic assessment, violating NPSNN paragraph 4.5 and regulation 21(1)(b) of the 2017 Regulations (EIA), and breaching the Tameside duty.
- •The Defendant relied on an economic assessment from early 2019, despite updates to relevant guidance (WebTAG, HM Treasury Green Book) since the Examining Authority's report.
- •The Claimant sought to admit an expert report to refute the Defendant's reliance on an outdated economic assessment.
- •The Defendant and Interested Party withdrew their section 31(2A) defence based on the outdated economic assessment before the hearing.
Legal Principles
Legal principles applicable to judicial review under section 118 of the 2008 Act.
R (Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Limited) v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] EWHC 2161 (Admin); [2022] PTSR 74, 140-144.
Interpretation of national policy statements is objective, distinguishing between policy interpretation (for the court) and planning judgment (for the decision-maker).
R (Substation Action Save East Suffolk Limited) v Energy Secretary [2024] EWCA Civ 12; [2024] PTSR 561 at [40], R (Scarisbrick) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWCA Civ 787 at [19].
Decision-maker's duty of reasonable inquiry (Tameside duty): obligation to take reasonable steps to inform themselves, with judicial intervention only if no reasonable authority could have been satisfied.
R(Balajigari) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673; [2019] 1 WLR 4647 at [70].
Expert evidence is admissible only where reasonably required to resolve proceedings.
CPR 35.1, R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 2094 (Admin) at [37]-[38].
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The Defendant did not misinterpret NPSNN paragraph 4.5; his decision was consistent with paragraphs 4.3, 4.5, and 4.7 of the NPSNN, considering the proportionality of the information provided in light of updated guidance.
Ground 1(a) (misinterpretation of NPSNN 4.5) rejected.
The Defendant's approach to the economic assessment adhered to the relevant policy guidance in paragraph 4.7 of the NPSNN, considering whether the existing information remained proportionate.
Ground 1(b) (breach of regulation 21 of the 2017 Regulations) rejected.
The Defendant's reasoned conclusion on the environmental effects, specifically regarding climate change, was up to date and not contingent upon the BCR calculation.
Ground 1(c) (breach of Tameside duty) rejected.
The Defendant's explanation for not requiring an updated economic assessment was rational; he deemed the existing information proportionate.
Claimant's application to admit Professor Goodwin's expert report refused.
The evidence was not reasonably required to resolve the proceedings after the Defendant and Interested Party withdrew their section 31(2A) defence.
Similar Cases
Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Limited & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport
[2024] EWHC 339 (Admin)
Andrew Boswell, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Transport
[2024] EWCA Civ 145
Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 1227
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)