Friends Of The Earth Limited v Secretary Of State For Levelling Up, Housing And Communities & Ors
[2024] EWHC 2349 (Admin)
Friends of the Earth Limited v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
18 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 3255 (KB)
High Court
A group challenged a government decision to allow a coal mine. They wanted to see secret advice the government got, but the judge said the decision was clear enough already and didn't need the secret advice. The judge refused to give them the advice. They also wanted to add new evidence, but the judge said to wait and ask again at the main trial.
Key Facts
- •Friends of the Earth Ltd (FoE) challenged the Secretary of State's grant of planning permission for coking coal mining.
- •FoE sought disclosure of a Ministerial Submission (policy advice) not mentioned in the Decision Letter.
- •The Secretary of State refused disclosure, arguing the Decision Letter and Inspector's Report contained full reasoning.
- •The court reviewed the Ministerial Submission in confidence.
- •FoE's challenge was based on two grounds relating to the assessment of net-zero claims and international carbon emissions.
Legal Principles
Disclosure is not required in statutory planning review unless ordered by the court.
CPR Part 54, Practice Direction, Annex D 4.42
The Decision Letter (and Inspector's Report) should provide complete reasoning on significant issues.
Statutory duty regarding reasons for decision; bases for challenging decision lawfulness
The duty of candour encompasses providing a full account of the decision-making process, including material considerations, but doesn't necessarily require document disclosure.
Judicial authority on duty to provide reasons for decisions
The Secretary of State's defence stands or falls by the Decision Letter and Inspector's Report; supplementary evidence is generally inadmissible.
Case law on defending planning decisions
Disclosure should be “necessary to resolve the matter fairly and justly.”
Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland [2006] UKHL 53
Relevance alone is insufficient for disclosure; it must be necessary for fair determination.
Analysis of Tweed and Ball v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] EWHC 3090 (Admin)
Aarhus Convention Article 6(9) requires accessibility of reasons and considerations, met by the Decision Letter and Inspector's Report.
Aarhus Convention Article 6(9)
Outcomes
FoE's application for specific disclosure of the Ministerial Submission was dismissed.
Disclosure was not necessary for a fair and just resolution of the issues; the Decision Letter and Inspector's Report provided sufficient reasoning. The Ministerial Submission would likely lead to irrelevant collateral debates.
FoE's application to admit Mr. Toru's witness statement was adjourned to the rolled-up hearing.
The admissibility of the evidence postdating the decision is better assessed by the trial judge.
Similar Cases
The Secretary of State For Energy Security and Net Zero v The Information Commissioner
[2024] UKFTT 184 (GRC)
Mark Jopling Obo Udney Park Playing Fields Trust Limited v The Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 163 (GRC)
Whitley Parish Council, R (on the application of) v North Yorkshire County Council & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 92
Ruth Farnsworth v The Information Commissioner
[2023] UKFTT 592 (GRC)