R (Buckinghamshire County Council) v Transport Secretary (HighSpeed 2) [2014] UKSC 3; [2014] 1 WLR 324

Environmental assessment is a systematic process used to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of proposed projects or activities.

• It aims to identify, predict, and mitigate adverse effects on the environment before a project is undertaken.

• This process helps ensure that decisions are informed by a thorough understanding of potential environmental consequences and supports sustainable development practices.

The intended use of a hybrid parliamentary bill with deemed planning consent is to streamline the legislative process for realizing a project by integrating planning approval within the parliamentary framework.

• This approach facilitates the expedited development of significant projects by combining planning consent with legislative procedures, thereby reducing delays and complexities associated with separate approval processes.

The compliance of a proposed hybrid bill with EU environmental planning formalities is crucial to ensure alignment with European regulations.

• This includes adherence to directives such as the Parliament and Council Directive 2001/42/EC and Directive 2011/92/EU, which set standards for environmental impact assessments and planning procedures.

  • Compliance ensures that the bill meets EU environmental protection requirements and supports sustainable development practices.

• Directive 2001/42/EC requires member states to conduct strategic environmental assessments (SEAs) for certain plans and programs that are likely to have significant environmental effects.

  • Articles 1, 2(a), and 3(2) outline the directive's scope, specifying the need for assessments to ensure that environmental considerations are integrated into decision-making processes.

• Directive 2011/92/EU establishes procedures for assessing the environmental impact of certain public and private projects.

  • Articles 1(4), 6(2), and 11(1) detail the requirements for environmental impact assessments (EIAs), including the need for thorough evaluation of potential impacts, public participation, and information provision to ensure that projects comply with environmental protection standards.

By a command paper issued under the Royal Prerogative in March 2010, the then Government set out its proposed strategy for the development of a core high-speed rail network linking London to Manchester and Leeds via Birmingham, with northward high-speed connections from the outset (HS2).

• In May 2010, the Government affirmed its commitment to a high-speed rail network to be achieved in two phases due to financial constraints.

  • Phase 1 would connect London to Birmingham, and Phase 2 would extend onward, via a Y-shaped network, to Leeds and Manchester. 

• Consultation commenced in February 2011 and closed in July 2011.

• By a second command paper issued in January 2012 (the DNS), the Government announced its decision to proceed with HS2 and outlined the steps for its realization. 

  • It proposed that HS2 should be advanced through hybrid Bills in Parliament, which would include development consent in the form of deemed planning permission.

The claimants brought claims for judicial review against the Secretary of State, arguing, among other points, that a strategic environmental assessment should have been conducted in accordance with Article 3 of Parliament and Council Directive 2001/42/EC (the SEA Directive), as the DNS was a plan or program that set the framework for future development consent. 

They also contended that delivering Phase 1 of HS2 through a hybrid Bill procedure in Parliament would breach European Union environmental planning formalities as outlined in Article 6 of Parliament and Council Directive 2011/92/EU (the EIA Directive).

The judge dismissed these claims, and the Court of Appeal upheld his decision.

The purpose of the SEA Directive was to ensure that decisions on development consent were not constrained by earlier plans that had not themselves been assessed for likely significant environmental effects.

Consequently, Article 3(2) concerned criteria that went beyond merely defining the project or describing its merits; it set the criteria by which the project had to be determined by the authority responsible for approving it.

The DNS detailed the HS2 project, including its rationale and the Government's reasons for rejecting alternatives.

• While it might have been seen as influencing the framework for subsequent debate and aiming to affect its outcome, it did not constrain the decision-making process of the authority responsible, which had been Parliament.

Therefore, it was acte clair that the DNS fell outside the scope of the SEA Directive, and the appeal was dismissed. 

This case examined whether the HS2 project adhered to environmental assessment regulations.

• The Government proposed HS2 through hybrid Bills, integrating planning consent with legislative procedures to expedite the project.

• Claimants argued that a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) was needed for the DNS (Decision on the National Strategy) and that the hybrid Bill procedure might breach EU environmental formalities.

The court held that the SEA Directive was meant to ensure that earlier plans, not assessed for environmental effects, did not constrain later development decisions.

The DNS, while detailing HS2, did not constitute a plan requiring SEA as it influenced rather than constrained decision-making.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the DNS fell outside the SEA Directive's scope and that the use of hybrid Bills complied with environmental regulations.