Court of Appeal gives permission for appeal of Sizewell C Nuclear Power station ruling
The Court of Appeal has given permission for an appeal of the High Court's decision to dismiss a challenge brought over development consent for the Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station.
In June of this year, Mr Justice Holgate refused permission for a challenge brought by campaigners at Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) that argued the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy's decision to grant development consent for the construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of the power station was unlawful.
But Lord Justice Coulson has given TASC permission to appeal over claims concerning the supply of water to the site.
At the High Court, Holgate J found the seven grounds brought by the claimants to be either without merit or unarguable.
Three of the seven grounds brought at the High Court concerned water supply issues. They argued that:
- Contrary to reg.63(1) of the Habitats Regulations, the defendant failed to assess the environmental impacts of the "project" (including the necessary permanent potable water supply solution).
- In the alternative, contrary to reg.63(1), the defendant failed to assess cumulatively the environmental impacts of the power station together with those of the permanent potable water supply solution.
- The defendant failed to supply lawfully adequate reasons for departing from the advice of NE [Natural England] that the permanent water supply should be considered to be a fundamental component of the "operation of the project" and its effects at this stage.
Parts of TASC's argument concerned the environmental impact of a desalination plant in the plans that would require 2.2 million litres of water per day.
According to TASC, Coulson LJ permitted the appeal as it appeared as though the Secretary of State gave permission for the power station against the advice of the planning examining authority and because of TASC's arguments about the need for a water supply.
Coulson LJ also granted permission to appeal due to the scale and public interest surrounding the Sizewell C project.
On appeal, it is argued that Holgate J was wrong to say that the company behind the nuclear power plant was "unable to identify a permanent supply of potable water" and that water supply connections were "simply unknown".
TASC say the company could at any time have decided to proceed with a desalination plant but, instead, chose to keep open the option of a supply provided by Northumbrian Water.
Also, the claimant contends that if Sizewell C did rely on Northumbrian Water for its potable water, the scale and location of the power station would necessitate additional infrastructure and the impacts of this, including harm to European Sites, have not been assessed.
The claimants are being represented by Rowan Smith of Leigh Day Solicitors.
Smith said: "TASC will now have another chance to argue that the permanent water supply was either part of the Sizewell C project, meaning its impacts needed to be assessed as part of the whole development application, or the water supply was a separate project, in which case its likely impacts needed to be added to those of the power station."
Adam Carey
