Key Facts
- •Judicial review of the Secretary of State for Transport's (SST) second decision to grant a Development Consent Order (DCO) for the A303 road scheme near Stonehenge.
- •The scheme involves a tunnel and cuttings impacting the Stonehenge World Heritage Site (WHS).
- •The first judicial review quashed the SST's first decision due to failures in considering heritage asset impacts and alternative options.
- •The second decision was challenged on several grounds, including unfairness, failure to consider alternative routes, irrationality, and inadequate consideration of climate change.
- •The claimants included SAVE Stonehenge and a landowner alleging injurious affection.
Legal Principles
Requirements of fairness depend on the decision-making body, the decision's nature, and the statutory framework.
Lloyd v McMahon [1987] AC 625
Procedural unfairness requires demonstrating material prejudice; technical breaches are insufficient.
Hopkins Developments Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] PTSR 1145
A Minister's decision considers matters of personal knowledge or those brought to attention; omission is challengeable only if the matter was mandated by law or an 'obviously material consideration'.
R (National Association of Health Stores) v Department of Health [2005] EWCA Civ 154
Decision-makers need not consider every potentially relevant factor; judicial review focuses on legality, not merits.
R (Friends of the Earth Limited) v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] PTSR 190
The weight given to material considerations is a matter of planning judgment, subject to Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Tesco Stores Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759
In planning decisions, the application of judgment and discretion predominates.
R (Adlard) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2002] 1 WLR 2515
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review refused for grounds 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.
The grounds were deemed unarguable; the court found no procedural unfairness, irrationality, or failure to consider material considerations.
Permission to amend the statement of facts and grounds to add ground 8 refused.
Ground 8 (inadequate ministerial briefing) was also deemed unarguable.
Ground 7 (unlawful environmental impact assessment) stayed pending a Court of Appeal decision.
This ground was subject to a stay due to ongoing related litigation.