- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United Kingdom
- /
- Campaign to Protect Rural England v Secretary of S...
Litigation
Campaign to Protect Rural England v Secretary of State for Transport (challenge to the A57 Link Roads Development Consent Order 2022)
Date
2023
Geography
About this case
Documents
Summary
In January 2023, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), Peak District and South Yorkshire branch launched a legal challenge against the Secretary of State for Transport’s decision in November 2022 to grant development consent for a major new dual carriageway known as the trans-Pennine link road. The consent was granted via the A57 LinIn January 2023 the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), Peak District and South Yorkshire branch launched a legal challenge against the Secretary of State for Transport’s decision in November 2022 to grant development consent for a major new dual carriageway known as the trans-Pennine link road. The consent was granted via the A57 Link Roads Development Consent Order 2022.
When making this Order the Transport Secretary accepted the scheme would “result in an increase in carbon emissions” but concluded that the “proposed development is consistent with existing and emerging policy requirements to achieve the UK’s trajectory towards net zero”.
The challenge alleges the Transport Secretary failed to consider the environmental impacts of the scheme, including cumulative carbon emissions.
At the hearing in October 2023, all parties accepted that the above ground was materially the same as the challenge advanced by Dr Boswell in Boswell v Secretary of State for Transport [2023] EWHC 1710 which was dismissed by the High Court. However Dr Boswell had been granted permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal. The parties were in agreement with the court's suggestion that this ground of the present claim be stayed pending a decision from the Court of Appeal in Boswell. Accordingly, no submissions were made on the substance of this at the hearing. In November 2023 a judgment was issued, which recorded the above approach at paragraph 7. The judgment also dismissed another ground of challenge, not climate related, that was heard at the October hearing.