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

19 February 2024

[2024] EWHC 339 (Admin)

High Court

A court reviewed a decision to build a road near Stonehenge. People challenged the decision for various reasons, claiming it was unfair or didn't consider important things enough. The court largely sided with the decision to build the road, saying the challenges weren't strong enough to overturn it.

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.

Similar Cases

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)