HS2 Action Alliance Ltd & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport & Anor
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- Mr Justice Lindblom
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Environmental Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The HS2 Action Alliance and London Borough of Hillingdon Council challenged the Secretary of State for Transport's safeguarding directions for Phase 1 of the HS2 project, arguing they should be assessed under the SEA Directive. The court ruled that these safeguarding directions were not a plan or program setting the framework for future development consent within SEA. However, it accepted that they were regulated by legislative or administrative provisions. The claim was ultimately dismissed, with noteworthy principles emphasizing the need for a measure to meaningfully constrain decision-making to require SEA assessment.
Judgment
Mr Justice Lindblom:
Introduction
The proposed High Speed Two railway (“HS2”) is, in the Government’s view, “the most significant single transport infrastructure project in the UK since the building of the motorways”. That is how the project is described in the Command Paper “High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future – Decisions and Next Steps”, which was presented to Parliament in January 2012. In its scale and purpose it recalls the great schemes of railway expansion promoted in the 19 th century.
In this claim for judicial review, as re-amended on 21 July 2014, the claimants, HS2 Action Alliance (“HS2AA”) and the London Borough of Hillingdon Council (“Hillingdon”), contend that the defendant, the Secretary of State for Transport (“the Secretary of State”), acted unlawfully when, on 26 June 2014, he used statutory powers to make safeguarding directions for Phase 1 of HS2. Their essential complaint is that the safeguarding directions ought to have been assessed under the regime for strategic environmental assessment (“SEA”) in Directive 2001/42/EC “on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment” (“the SEA Directive”) and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (“the SEA regulations”), and that the Secretary of State’s failure to undertake such an assessment renders them unlawful and liable to be quashed. The claim is opposed by the Secretary of State. The interested party, High Speed Two (HS2) Limited (“HS2 Ltd.”), has taken no active part in the proceedings.
Background
This is not the first claim for judicial review in which the Government’s promotion of HS2 has been challenged. And it may not be the last. HS2, if it is built, will transform the environment along its route. On any view, its impacts on the environment will be significant. The Government acknowledges this, but believes that the new railway will also bring about great economic and social benefit. The project is vigorously opposed by many objectors, including a number of local authorities. HS2AA is running a national campaign against it. Hillingdon is one of the authorities whose areas are crossed by the proposed route of the railway.
In March 2010 the Government then in power published a Command Paper entitled “High Speed Rail” (Cm 7827), outlining its proposed strategy for a high speed railway in the form of a Y-shaped network linking London to Birmingham, Manchester, the West Midlands, Sheffield and Le