Dr Andrew Boswell, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero
[2024] EWHC 2128 (Admin)
Together Against Sizewell C Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero
22 June 2023
[2023] EWHC 1526 (Admin)
High Court
Someone sued to stop the building of a new nuclear power plant because the water supply wasn't fully sorted out yet. The judge said the water and the power plant were separate projects and it was okay to build the plant, even if the water wasn't 100% certain. The judge checked if the government followed the rules and found they did.
Key Facts
- •The claimant, Together Against Sizewell C Limited (TASC), challenged the decision to grant development consent for the Sizewell C nuclear power station.
- •A key issue was the lack of a secured permanent potable water supply at the time of the decision.
- •The Secretary of State decided that the water supply was a separate project from the power station and didn't need assessment at this stage.
- •The decision was made under Section 114 of the Planning Act 2008.
- •The Habitats Regulations and EIA Regulations were central to the legal challenge.
- •Several grounds of challenge were raised, focusing on the assessment of environmental impacts, consideration of alternative solutions, and the adequacy of reasons provided.
Legal Principles
Appropriate Assessment under Habitats Regulations
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017
Cumulative Impact Assessment
Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017
Weight given to expert advice (e.g., Natural England)
Case law (Akester, Wyatt)
Consideration of alternative solutions under Habitats Regulations
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, Regulation 64(1)
Definition of a 'project' for EIA and Habitats Regulations purposes
Case law (Bowen-West, Smyth, Wingfield, Ashchurch)
Adequacy of reasons for decision-making
Case law (Save Britain’s Heritage, South Bucks)
Planning Act 2008 framework for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs)
Planning Act 2008
Water Industry Act 1991 framework for water resource management
Water Industry Act 1991
Nuclear Installations Act 1965 framework for nuclear site licensing
Nuclear Installations Act 1965
Outcomes
Application for judicial review dismissed.
The court found that the claimant's grounds of challenge were unarguable. The Secretary of State's decision was deemed lawful and rational.
Secretary of State's decision to grant development consent upheld.
The court rejected the argument that the permanent water supply should be considered part of the Sizewell C project for the purposes of environmental assessment. The Secretary of State's approach, considering it a separate, subsequent project with cumulative impacts to be assessed later, was found to be lawful.
Similar Cases
Substation Action Save East Suffolk Ltd, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 12
Wayne Ward & Anor v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1780 (Admin)
Mair Bain v Secretary of State for Transport
[2024] EWHC 2216 (Admin)
Suffolk Energy Action Solutions SPV Limited, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero
[2023] EWHC 1796 (Admin)