Introduction

The case of Plan B Earth v. Secretary of State for Transport ([2020] EWCA Civ 214) represents a pivotal moment in the intersection of environmental law and national infrastructure development in the United Kingdom. This judicial review revolves around the legality of the government's policy supporting the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport, a decision scrutinized for its compliance with environmental directives and international climate commitments.

The appellants, including environmental organizations such as Plan B Earth, Friends of the Earth, and local councils like the London Borough of Hillingdon, challenged the designation of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). They contended that the government's policy failed to lawfully consider the Paris Agreement and other environmental obligations, thereby breaching the Planning Act 2008.

The defendants included the Secretary of State for Transport, Heathrow Airport Ltd., Arora Holdings Ltd., and other interested parties. The core issues centered on whether the ANPS was lawfully produced, particularly regarding adherence to the Habitats Directive, the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive, and the UK's commitments under international climate agreements.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Divisional Court, finding that the Secretary of State for Transport had unlawfully designated the ANPS. The primary reason was the failure to consider the United Kingdom's obligations under the Paris Agreement, which is a central tenet of the Planning Act 2008's requirement to contribute to sustainable development.

Specifically, the court determined:

• The ANPS did not adequately consider the Paris Agreement, an international commitment to limit global warming to well below 2°C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.
• The decision-making process neglected the broader environmental implications, including non-CO2 emissions and long-term climate impacts beyond 2050.
• The Secretary of State acted on misguided legal advice, erroneously believing he was precluded from considering the Paris Agreement.

Consequently, the ANPS was deemed unlawful, and appropriate relief was granted to ensure that the policy framework complies with statutory requirements and international commitments.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced prior case law to delineate the appropriate standards of review and the application of environmental directives:

• Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19 and Kennedy v Information Commissioner [2014] UKSC 20:
• R. (on the application of Mott) v Environment Agency [2016] EWCA Civ 564
• R. (on the application of Prideaux) v Buckinghamshire County Council [2013] EWHC 1054 (Admin)
• Simplex GE (Holdings) Ltd. v Secretary of State for the Environment [1988] 3 P.L.R. 25
• Mass Energy Ltd. v Birmingham City Council [1994] Env. L.R. 298

These cases collectively emphasized the principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness as the standard of review for administrative decisions, particularly those involving complex scientific and technical assessments.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's legal analysis hinged on several critical factors:

• Compliance with the Habitats Directive: The ANPS failed to treat the Gatwick second runway scheme as a viable alternative under Article 6(4) of the Directive, as it did not align with the policy objective of maintaining the UK's status as an aviation hub.
• Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive: The ANPS inadequately incorporated the requirements of the SEA Directive, particularly regarding the consideration of international agreements like the Paris Agreement.
• Paris Agreement Considerations: Despite being an unincorporated international treaty, the Paris Agreement's obligations were deemed integral to sustainable development policies under the Planning Act 2008.

The court underscored that failure to consider the Paris Agreement constituted an error of law, rendering the ANPS unlawful. This was bolstered by the understanding that governmental policies must align with both domestic and international environmental commitments.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future infrastructure projects and environmental policy formulation:

• Strengthening of Environmental Commitments: Governments must rigorously incorporate international climate agreements into national policy statements to ensure legal compliance.
• Judicial Oversight: Courts will continue to serve as crucial arbiters in assessing the legality of environmental considerations in administrative decisions.
• Policy Revisions: The ruling mandates a reconsideration and potential revision of the ANPS to align with statutory and international obligations, setting a precedent for similar cases.

Moreover, this case serves as a clarion call to policymakers to integrate comprehensive environmental assessments that account for both immediate and long-term climate impacts, thereby bolstering the UK's commitment to global climate goals.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Wednesbury Unreasonableness

Originating from the case Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223, the concept of Wednesbury Unreasonableness refers to a standard of judicial review wherein a decision is deemed unreasonable if it is so irrational that no reasonable authority could have made it. This ensures that administrative bodies do not act arbitrarily.

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive

The SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) mandates the assessment of environmental effects of certain plans and programs to promote sustainable development. It requires decision-makers to consider environmental impacts at the policy-making stage, ensuring that plans align with environmental protection objectives.

Habitats Directive

The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) aims to conserve natural habitats and wild fauna and flora across the EU. Article 6 outlines the need for appropriate assessments of plans and projects that may significantly affect protected sites, ensuring that habitat integrity is maintained.

Paris Agreement

Adopted in 2015 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Paris Agreement is a global pact to combat climate change by limiting global warming to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. It emphasizes national contributions and the gradual increase in global climate action.

Conclusion

The Plan B Earth v. Secretary of State for Transport judgment underscores the judiciary's role in enforcing compliance with environmental laws and international commitments. By declaring the ANPS unlawful for neglecting the Paris Agreement, the court reinforced the necessity for governmental policies to harmonize domestic legislation with global climate objectives.

This decision not only mandates a procedural reassessment of the ANPS but also sets a precedent ensuring that future infrastructure developments will undergo stringent environmental scrutiny. It highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law, particularly in the realm of environmental conservation and sustainable development.

Ultimately, this judgment serves as a pivotal reference for environmental law, emphasizing the indispensability of integrating international climate commitments into national policy frameworks to foster holistic and legally compliant environmental governance.