Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport and Infrastructure

Close
Home / News and Insights / Blogs / Planning Act 2008 / 969: Successful highways DCO and a failed nuclear challenge

Mustafa Latif-Aramesh
Partner and Parliamentary Agent

Forget the political kerfuffle, today’s entry reports on the grant of development consent for the A47/A11 Thickthorn Junction and the failed attempt to challenge the Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station DCO.

My way, or the highway

Whilst fracking is causing political earthquakes, the Secretary of State has granted consent for the A47/A11 Thickthorn Junction project. A few quick facts:

  • Project: single lane free-flowing link road connecting the A11 and the A47, and link road including the construction of two bridges and junctions;
  • Promoter: National Highways;
  • Application made: 31 March 2021;
  • Application decided: 14 October 2022, so just under 17 months;
  • Single inspector: Mathew Shrigley;
  • 40 relevant representations: low to average;
  • 10 written representations: low;
  • 144 questions in the first round: above average (various questions are subdivided);
  • Three issue hearings, one compulsory acquisition hearings and one open floor hearing: average; and
  • 535 documents on the Planning Inspectorate web page on the date of the decision: also average.

Here are a few things that stand out from the decision letter.

First, there’s an interface with the Hornsea 3 DCO project which primarily relates to construction access, but their relevant representation also records an issue with operational maintenance of their assets. Interestingly, the construction traffic management requirement in the DCO includes Orsted (the promoter of the Hornsea project) as a consultee on the post-DCO traffic management plan.

Second, a few DCO provisions stood out to me. Design is considered once again. Both the Examining Authority and Secretary of State recommended a post-DCO design review. The wording broadly follows the wording adopted in the M25 Junction 28 DCO, requiring ‘a report to be prepared by the undertaker of its findings following a review of the design of the bridges, underpasses, and structures of the authorised development; the review to be carried out in consultation with the relevant planning authority and the local highway authority’. The precedented provisions relating to handover of local roads are considered appropriate.

More generally on DCO provisions, it is worth noting the Secretary of State is solidifying their stance on precedent. The backend of the decision letter is littered with references to changes made to ensure ‘consistency with highways DCOs’ (a phrase used a grand total of six times) and also reverting to the precedented approach to the provisions (the word ‘precedent’ is used in some permutation eight times). This is becoming a clear trend.

Third, there’s an interesting issue about a potential piece of open space. The Examining Authority accepted this was ‘ordinary land’ (see paragraph 8.10.14) but considered that even if it was special category land, an exemption from special parliamentary procedure was available. The preamble to the made DCO does not reference s131 so it’s safe to say the Secretary of State agreed the ‘potential’ open space was not open space for the purposes of s131/132 of the Planning Act 2008.

Legal challenges to Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station fails

The legal challenge to the Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station has failed. ‘Together Against Sizewell C’ had attempted to judicially review the grant of development consent on seven grounds. Permission to challenge on those grounds was refused by Mr Justice Kerr on the papers, though we wait to see if it will be renewed in open court. It’s worth noting that another legal claim against the nuclear project – brought by the RSPB – failed because they did not lodge their papers in time.

Related Articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
50/60 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JH

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
Grosvenor House, Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
Grosvenor House, Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Real Estate chevron
Transport and Infrastructure chevron