High Court challenge bid into road scheme including Stonehenge Tunnel dismissed
The hearing took place last month
Last updated 26th Jul 2021
Campaigners who challenged the Transport Secretary's decision to give the green light to the A303 Stonehenge Tunnel and a number of other road schemes have lost their High Court bid.
Grant Shapps was accused of acting "unlawfully" as he approved the project in November against the advice of planning officials.
The challenge was made against the Road Investment Strategy 2 which is made up of 45 road projects across the country, including the A303.
At a hearing in June, the Transport Action Network argued that the scheme had an inevitable "undesirable" impact on the climate, which they say was ignored by Mr Shapps.
The Department for Transport defended the claim, arguing it had "full and proper regard" to the environment when setting the plan, including considering climate change-related impacts on the environment and carbon emissions.
In a ruling today (Monday 26th July) Mr Justice Holgate rejected TAN's bid, finding the net-zero target had "plainly been taken into account" when setting the scheme.
He said:
"The (Secretary of State) was advised of the impact of the programme on the net-zero target.
"He did not need to be shown the supporting numerical analysis.
"Some people might think that it would have been better if (he) had been supplied with at least some of that analysis and that that would not have involved overburdening the minister.
"But... that is not the test for a public law challenge."
He added that the DfT's barrister had offered evidence that the Government is "taking a range of steps to tackle the need for urgency in addressing carbon production in the transport sector".
Transport Action Network group say they are "shocked" by the ruling and intend on appealing the decision.
Director Chris Todd said:
"In a month of unprecedented fires and floods, the effect of this judgment is to prioritise the 'stability and certainty' of the roads over that of our climate.
"The judgment has failed to grapple with the clear requirement created by Parliament that ministers must carefully consider environmental impacts."
More follows.