Suffolk Energy Action Solutions SPV Limited, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero

Suffolk Energy Action Solutions SPV Limited, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero

The use of non-objection clauses in the Heads of Terms and Option Agreements was legitimate in the circumstances of this scheme. The clauses did not prevent landowners from objecting, as evidenced by the number who did object. The Secretary of State properly addressed the complaints about the use of non-objection clauses, and had sufficient information to make a lawful decision. There was no procedural unfairness or unlawful distortion of the process.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Suffolk Energy Action Solutions SPV Limited; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero; Interested Party: East Anglia One North Limited; Interested Party: East Anglia Two Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Development Consent Orders, Compulsory Acquisition, Environmental Impact Assessment, Non Objection Clauses, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Development Consent Orders Compulsory Acquisition Environmental Impact Assessment Non Objection Clauses Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suffolk Energy Action Solutions SPV Limited

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero

Defendant/respondent

East Anglia One North Limited

Interested Party

East Anglia Two Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of non-objection clauses by the developer was lawful in the context of development consent applications
  2. 2 Whether the Secretary of State failed to address complaints about the use of non-objection clauses, resulting in procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

The use of non-objection clauses in the Heads of Terms and Option Agreements was legitimate in the circumstances of this scheme. The clauses did not prevent landowners from objecting, as evidenced by the number who did object. The Secretary of State properly addressed the complaints about the use of non-objection clauses, and had sufficient information to make a lawful decision. There was no procedural unfairness or unlawful distortion of the process.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed