R (on the application of Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Limited) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Transport and others (Respondents)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2024/1004

Parties

Appellant(s)

Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Limited

Respondent(s)

Secretary of State for Transport

National Highways

Historic England

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err by: (1) Upholding the judge’s conclusion that the ministerial briefing, which formed the basis for the Minister’s decision to approve a scheme to develop a road next to Stonehenge, was legally adequate? (2) Treating statements that the Secretary of State had ‘considered’ representations as meaning the Minister had seen them? (3) Finding the Secretary of State’s view on the scheme’s compliance with the World Heritage Convention (“WHC”) was sound? (4) Failing to acknowledge the materiality that the scheme would lead to the Site being inserted on the List of World Heritage in Danger (“LWHD”).

Facts

On 14 July 2023 the First Respondent approved a scheme to improve a stretch of the A303 next to Stonehenge (the “Scheme”) in a decision letter. The scheme would widen the road and construct a 3km tunnel. It was designated a “nationally significant infrastructure project” under the Planning Act 2008 and a Development Consent Order (“DCO”) was made. The Secretary of State had first approved the scheme in 2020. His decision had been quashed by the High Court but then, following a redetermination in 2023, was remade. The Appellant sought judicial review of this redetermination which was refused. The Appellant appealed this decision. Following the hearing, on 29 July 2024 the Government announced that it did not intend to proceed with the Scheme. The Court of Appeal held that this announcement did not impact the underlying development order, and therefore the appeal was not academic. Nevertheless, the appeal was denied, as the redetermination had been conducted properly and fairly. Ministers were not obliged to investigate whether their briefing documents contained all obviously material considerations; and the WHC did not impose an absolute prohibition on harm to a world heritage site. The Appellant appeals this decision.

Date of issue

4 December 2024

Case origin

PTA

Appeal

Justices

Lord Reed

Lord Sales

Lady Simler

Permission to Appeal

Permission to Appeal decision date

27 January 2025

Permission to Appeal decision

Refused

Back to top