Together Against Sizewell C Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2025] EWHC 3460 (Admin)

[2025] EWHC 3460 (Admin)Case No AC-2025-LON-001659
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
PLANNING COURT
Venue Royal Courts of Justice,Date Friday, 12 December 2025
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL
Before
MR JUSTICE MOULD
THE KINGon the application of
Between
TOGETHER AGAINST SIZEWELL C LIMITEDClaimantSECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY SECURITY AND NET ZERODefendant- and –
Between
SIZEWELL C LIMITEDInterested Party
DAVID WOLFE KC AND ODETTE CHALABY (instructed by Leigh Day) appeared for ClaimantTHEA OSMUND SMITH (instructed by Government Legal Department) appeared for DefendantHEREWARD PHILLPOT KC AND HUGH FLANAGAN (instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP) appeared for Interested Party
JUDGMENT
Digital Transcription by Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JEWeb: www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
[1]The Sizewell C (Nuclear Generating Station) Order 2022 ["the Order"] was made on 20 July 2022 and came into force on 11 August 2022. The order grants development consent for the Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station Project.

Background

[2]The claimant is a campaign group set up to oppose the development of Sizewell C. It was the claimant and the appellant in previous judicial review proceedings challenging the lawfulness of the decision to make the Order. That previous claim was refused permission on all grounds following rolled up hearings both in this court and on appeal. See Together against Sizewell C Limited and the Secretary State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2023] EWCA Civ 1517; [2024] ELR 22.[3]In May 2024, the Office for Nuclear Regulation [“the ONR”] granted a nuclear site licence [“NSL”] for Sizewell C. An application for permission for judicial review of the NSL was refused by this court and certified as totally without merit.[4]Meanwhile, the claimant had become aware of an assessment report prepared by the ONR as part of the licensing process entitled "External hazards, proportionate reassessment of an application by Sizewell C Limited for a nuclear site licence” published on 26 April 2024 [“the external hazards report”]. Having considered the external hazards report, the claimant wrote to the defendant on 6 March 2025, requesting that he exercise his powers under the Planning Act 2008 [“the 2008 Act”] to change or revoke the Order.[5]Although the claimant’s email was lengthy and detailed, the principal thrust of their argument was that the nuclear site licensing process had revealed a commitment on the part of the interested party to build two overland flood barriers [“OFBs”] to protect the Sizewell C site from flooding, should climate change be worse than is reasonably foreseeable. As the OFBs had not been proposed as part of the project considered during the examination process for the Order, their impact on designated nature conservation sites and the environment, and consideration of alternative mitigation solutions, had not been assessed as part of the appropriate assessment of the project pursuant to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 [“the 2017 Regulations”].[6]The claimant provided the defendant with the external hazards report, drawing attention to paragraph 56, which includes the following passage:
"Overland Flood Barriers. SZC Limited has committed to install overland flood barriers should climate change be worse than is reasonably foreseeable [51], to protect the site from extreme still seawater level; see Appendix 3 Figure 1. The role of the overland flood barriers is to ensure that water surrounding the site is less than the platform height, ensuring that the SZC site remains protected; see [51] and [52]. Whilst the height of these barriers has been estimated, see Table 3, if they are required, their detailed design will be several decades into the future, when the climate change trajectory is better understood and they can be sized accordingly."
[7]The claimant put the following proposition to the defendant – “As set out above there are now two substantially different Sizewell C projects, the one in the DCO approved by the Secretary of State in 2022 and the one now being considered by the ONR, contrary to the overarching principle set out in the joint ONR/EA guidance. To rectify the position, the SOS must make a decision on whether the material changes to the project highlighted above (namely the revisions relating to the proposal for over land flood barriers, the 20 year extension to the site lifetime and the weakening of the climate change adjustment factor) would either:(a) contravene any relevant assimilated law such as the habitats directive or convention rights; and/or(b) amount to exceptional circumstances that make it appropriate for the SOS to exercise its power to change or revoke the DCO. These revisions, either considered individually or cumulatively, could have tipped the planning balance against the SOS's approval in July 2022”.[8]The powers on which the claimant there relied are conferred by section 153 of and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to the 2008 Act. In particular, paragraphs 3(1) and 3(7) – “(1) The Secretary of State may by order make a change to, or revoke, a development consent order. … (7) Thepower may be exercised without an application being made if the Secretary of State is satisfied that –(a) if the development were carried out in accordance with the development consent order, there would be a contravention of relevant assimilatedlaw or any of the Convention rights, or(b) there are other exceptional circumstances that make it appropriate to exercise the power”. “Relevant assimilated law” is defined in paragraph 3(8) to mean - "(a) any right power, obligation, liability or restriction that – (i) was created or arose by or under the EU Treaties before exit day, and (ii) forms part of assimilated law, and (b) any remedy or procedure that – (i) was provided for by or under the EU Treaties before exit day, and (ii) forms part of assimilated law, as modified from time to time." as modified from time to time."[9]The EU Directive on the Conservation of Habitats and Species [“the Habitats Directive”] is relevant assimilated law. Also relevant are the 2017 Regulations which give effect to the provisions of the Habitats Directive in domestic law: in particular, articles 6(2) and (3) of the Habitats Directive and regulations 9 and 63 of the 2017 Regulations. In this case, the claimant relies on the duty imposed on the defendant by regulation 9(3) of the 2017 Regulations – "Without prejudice to the preceding provisions, a competent authority, in exercising any of its functions, must have regard to the requirements of the Directives so far as they may be affected by the exercise of those functions."[10]The defendant is acting as competent authority when exercising his functions under the 2008 Act in operating the development consent order regime.[11]The claimant argued that the requirements of articles 6(2) and 6(3) of the Habitats Directive are engaged, as is the duty under regulation 63 of the 2017 Regulations to make an appropriate assessment of a plan or project in the circumstances stated in that regulation. Here, it was submitted, the Sizewell C project has now been shown to extend to the OFBs, to which the Interested Party has committed, as evidenced by the external hazards report (and as evidenced, it was said, by early iterations of the project design reports). The project including those elements has not yet been subject to appropriate assessment. The claimant submitted that in accordance with his duty under regulation 9(3) of the 2017 Regulations, the defendant was accordingly required to address and to remedy that deficiency. The powers conferred under paragraph 3(7) of Schedule 6 of the 2008 Act enabled him to do so, in response to the claimant's representations of 6 March 2025.

The defendant’s decision

[12]The defendant's response to those representations was given by the Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero in a letter of 28 March 2025 – "Thank you for your email and attachment of 6 March to the Secretary of State on behalf of Together Against Sizewell C, regarding Overland Flood Barriers (OFBs) referred to in the Office of Nuclear Regulation’s External Hazards Reassessment report to protect the Sizewell C site from flooding. I am responding as this matter falls under my Ministerial portfolio. The Nuclear New Build Generation Company (NNB SZC) Limited is required to construct the Sizewell C nuclear power station in accordance with consented parameters which is set out in Schedule 23 of the Sizewell C Development Consent Order 2022. Should NNB Generation Company (SZC) Limited decide that changes are required to the Development Consent Order, they are required to submit a change application."[13]In short, the defendant did not accept that the commitment to install OFBs, as mentioned in paragraph 56 of the external hazards report on which the claimant founded their representations, justified his exercise now of the power conferred on him by paragraphs 3(1) and (7) of Schedule 6 to the 2008 Act.[14]The claimant now seeks permission to apply for judicial review of that decision. On 25 July 2025 I adjourned the application for permission to apply for judicial review to an oral hearing.

Discussion

[15]Essentially the minister gave two reasons in his letter:(1) The Order controls the scope of the authorised development comprising the Sizewell C project. That project was, as he knew, subject to appropriate assessment under regulation 63 of the 2017 Regulations. In the light of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the first judicial review, it was not open to the claimant to call into question the legal adequacy of that appropriate assessment, or the defendant’s fulfilment of his responsibilities as competent authority, in the process of examination and authorisation of the project for the construction and operation for which the Order is in effect.(2) Schedule 6 of the 2008 Act provides a change procedure which enables the interested party to bring forward amendments to that authorised project, including seeking powers to provide OFBs. See paragraphs 3(1) and (4) of Schedule 6 of the 2008 Act. The interested party has not sought to bring forward such an application for change to bring OFBs into the Sizewell C project.[16]It is important to have in mind some of the relevant detail of the authorised Sizewell C project, as the minister will have done in giving those reasons.[17]Article 3 of the Order grants development consent for the construction, operation and maintenance of a nuclear power generating station at Sizewell Suffolk, known as Sizewell C. Development consent is granted for the authorised development specified in Schedule 1 to the Order, subject to the requirements specified in Schedule 2 to the Order.[18]Sizewell C to be located on a coastal site in Suffolk. It was necessary for the design of the project to include arrangements for sea defences. As one would expect, the design of those defences was refined during the preparation of the project and in anticipation of the submission of the application for development consent. A report dated September 2021 entitled, "Sizewell C Coastal Defences Design Report" [“the design report”] described the modified sea defence design as comprising the following elements:(1) A temporary sea defence during construction comprising a steel sheetpile wall to a level of 7.3 metres Above Ordnance Datum [“AOD”].(2) A permanent hard coastal defence feature [“HCDF”] comprising a rock armour revetment to a level of 12.6 metres AOD (excluding landscaping).(3) Up to 2 metres thickness of substrate over the revetment to allow for visual integration and habitat creation on the seaward slope giving a maximum total height of 14.6 AOD.(4) An adaptive sea level height of + 16.4 metres OD excluding landscaping with a maximum height of 18 metres AOD including landscaping.(5) A soft coastal defence feature [“SCDF”] of pebbles and cobbles to a level of 6.4 AOD.(6) Toe level of HCDF set at 0.0m AOD beneath SCDF.[19]The design report then explained how those design elements had been further optimised. That explanation included the following statement - "3.11.2. Owing to the inherently uncertain nature of climate change, it is recognised that the reasonably foreseeable climate change scenario may be exceeded, leading to more onerous climate change effects becoming prevalent. ONR and EA guidance therefore requires that the sea defence be capable of adaptation to a credible maximum (CM) sea level rise ... The sea defences have therefore been designed to allow for future adaptation to accommodate the CM scenario, should it develop. The modified defences that would be delivered through implementing these future adaptations are termed the adaptive design." The design report then explained the adaptive design.[20]A final update report in October 2021 stated – "Since the submission of the application, SZC Co has changed the height of the permanent hard coastal defence feature to 12.6 AOD, with the maximum crest height of the adaptive sea defence up to 16.4 metres AOD."[21]Flood risk and the adequacy of the proposed coastal defences was considered in considerable detail through the examination process under the 2008 Act. In 5.8.260 of its report, the examining authority stated - "The EXA concludes that the adaptive design would provide a feasible means of increasing the Crest height of the HCDF so that the sea defence could adapt to a credible maximum sea level rise should that scenario develop as a result of climate change. We are content that appropriate arrangements would be in place for monitoring and assessing the impacts of climate change on sea level rise to determine the trajectory of the projections. That, in turn, would enable implementation of the adaptive design to occur before the threshold was reached."[22]In his decision letter of 20 July 2022, the defendant referred to those conclusions - see DL4.280 - and agreed with them - see DL4.290 and following. The defendant's overall conclusion on flood risk at DL4.379 agreed with the examining authority that the interested party had fully considered the effects of the proposed development with respect to the policy requirements in relation to flood risk, including coastal flooding as set out in National Policy Statements EN-1 and EN-6.[23]The development authorised by the Order includes both the SCDF and the HCDF. Requirement 19 in Schedule 2 to the Order requires the detailed design of the those works to be approved by the local planning authority, East Suffolk Council. The interested party applied to discharge requirement 19. That application was approved by the Council on 9 February 2024. The claimant initially threatened judicial review of that approval, but did not in fact pursue a claim. The interested party subsequently applied to vary the details approved by the Council and approval of those varied details was granted on 30 September 2025.[24]In Waddenzee [2005] 2 CMLR 683 at [35] and [36], the CJEU said the fact that a project has been authorised according to the procedure laid down in Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive – i.e. under regulation 16 of the 2017 Regulations - renders superfluous, as regards to the actions to be taken on the protected site under the project, a concomitant application of the rule of general protection laid down in Article 6(2) - in domestic law, regulation 9(3) of the 2017 Regulations - "[36] Authorisation of a plan or project granted in accordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive necessarily assumes that it is considered not likely adversely to affect the integrity of the site concerned and, consequently, not likely to give rise to deterioration or significant disturbances within the meaning of Article 6(2)."[25]Were the interested party to make an application for change to bring OFBs into the project, any such application would then need to be considered by the defendant as competent authority, in accordance with his duty under Regulation 9(3). In particular, the need for appropriate assessment under regulation 63 of the 2017 Regulations would have to be considered, in the light of the proposed change to the project. That assessment would need to address the potential for intra project in-combination effects, i.e. the likelihood that the change considered in the context of the project as authorised by the Order would affect the integrity of protected nature conservation sites.[26]Accordingly, as matters stood before the defendant on the 28 March 2025, he was not under any legal duty as competent authority under regulation 9(3) of the 2017 Regulations in respect of the project authorised by the Order. Were the interested party to make a change application under Schedule 6 of the 2008 Act to bring OFBs into the project, the defendant would be obliged then to fulfil his duty as competent authority under regulation 9(3) in respect of that application, which he would discharge through the operation of regulation 63 of the 2017 Regulations. See Waddenzee at [35] and [36].[27]The question raised by this claim is whether the defendant was able lawfully to leave matters there (as he clearly stated to be his position in the minister’s letter of 28 March 2025), in the light of what was said in paragraph 56 of the external hazards report.[28]The claim is founded on the premise stated in paragraph 53 of the Statement of Facts and Grounds: "It is now clear that the overall nuclear power station project for the purposes of the Habitats Directive includes, or at least has to be taken to include, OFBs, even though OFBs were not applied for as part of the DCO".[29]Paragraph 55 of the Statement of Facts and Grounds asserts that OFBs are "clearly a fundamental part of the nuclear power station project itself”.[30]That contention is founded upon what is said in paragraph 56 of the external hazards report (the references in early design reports in 2017 adds nothing of substance since, as Ms Osmund Smith for the defendant pointed out, those early reports provide the source for the possible provision of OFBs in the future scenario with which the ONR is concerned in paragraph 56 of the external hazards report).[31]What then does paragraph 56 of the external hazards report contemplate?[32]It contemplates the installation of OFBs in the event that climate change results in extreme future sea level rise which is worse than is now reasonably foreseeable. It is made clear that OFBs are not currently considered to be a requirement - hence the use of the phrase "if required" - and that the scale, location design of such structures will not be known, if indeed they are ultimately found to be required, until "several decades into the future" - critically, when the climate change trajectory is better understood and they can be sized accordingly.[33]In the light of those fundamental uncertainties, which are rooted in the inescapable fact that the need for such structures in any event cannot be established until far into the future, it is entirely unsurprising that the interested party's position is as stated in paragraph 20 of its Summary Grounds of Defence – “It will not be known until several decades into the future whether OFBs are needed; they would only be required in main site operation and/or decommissioning if the effects of climate change are worse than is currently reasonably foreseeable. Throughout the construction and operation of the power station, SZC Ltd will be continuously monitoring sea level and coastal processes, including pursuant to controls imposed by the DCO (in particular the Coastal Processes Monitoring and Mitigation Plan required by requirements 12 and 19 of Schedule 2 to the DCO and for the purpose of producing the periodic safety reviews required by the ONR under Licence Condition 15 of the NSL). If that monitoring identifies that additional flood defences are necessary to counter the effects of climate change, SZC Ltd will have ample time (likely several decades) to finalise an appropriate design and secure the requisite consents to construct the OFBs (or other measures deemed appropriate at that point). This could be by seeking a change to the DCO or applying for planning permission, with any requisite EA and HRA processes carried out at the same time (although noting that given the likely timescales planning processes may differ to those today). This will all take place under the ONR's regulatory oversight”.[34]In my judgment, in the light of the matters to which I have referred and the response given by the interested party, the premise for this claim as stated in paragraphs 53 and 55 of the Statement of Facts and Grounds is unsustainable.[35]In his submissions on behalf of the claimant, David Wolfe KC nevertheless sought to invoke the precautionary principle. He said that it would be possible to provide a concept design for OBRs which would be capable of assessment and would, importantly, enable potential impacts on the protected nature conservation sites to be considered, together with alternative solutions such as raising the height of the power station platform so as to avoid the possible need for OFBs in the later lifetime of the project.[36]In my view, these contentions are without merit.[37]In its judgment on the previous judicial review at [62], the Court of Appeal referred to the principle expressed by the CJEU in its judgment in Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL v Conseil des Ministres [2020] ELR 9 at [143], that appropriate assessment for the purposes of article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive must be carried out before the relevant authority permits the plan or project to go ahead, even though there are several further steps in the consent procedure. As the CJEU emphasised, the assessment should in principle be carried out as soon as the effects which the project in question are likely to have on a protected site are sufficiently identifiable. However, the Court of Appeal offered the following important qualification - "But the corollary of this, as both respondents submitted, is that where the cumulative effects in question are not yet capable of being sufficiently identified for proper assessment at the consenting stage for the first project, because the second is still unidentified, the assessment of cumulative effects can lawfully await the consenting stage for that second project."[38]At [70] the Court of Appeal gave the following analysis of what constitutes the relevant project in this context - "What constitutes the relevant project, as a matter of fact, and the decision-maker’s evaluative - or planning - judgment will always depend on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. It is not possible to state any hard or fast rules, governing a decision-maker's exercise of judgment. That exercise of judgment carries a wide range of discretion."[39]The issue in the case before the Court of Appeal was whether there had been a failure of appropriate assessment in relation to the provision of potable water supply to the power station. In particular, whether it was a lacuna in appropriate assessment for the interested party not to have identified a solution, with particular reliance being placed on the possibility of that solution being the provision of a permanent desalination plant to be developed and operated by the interested party.[40]At [82] to [84] the Court of Appeal said -"82. Mr Wolfe put great emphasis on the likelihood of a permanent desalination plant being developed and operated by Sizewell C Ltd.. In our view, however, his argument gains no strength from that. Far from being a firm proposal, such development was not proposed at all. Sizewell C Ltd. had misgivings about its limitations, and would only resort to it as a fall-back in default of a mains supply. Its intention was to rely on the water resources management plan process instead. This had been made clear in the exchanges that took place after the examining authority had submitted its report to the Secretary of State. Permanent desalination was not expected to be the means of supplying water to the power station. It was not part of the project. The application for a development consent order did not include it. Development consent was not granted for it. Paragraphs 4.61 to 4.63 of the Secretary of State's decision letter accurately record the position. His conclusion in paragraph 4.63 that further, more detailed assessment of a permanent desalination plant was unnecessary is both unsurprising and, in our view, perfectly lawful.83. We share Holgate J.'s concern that the approach contended for by Mr Wolfe could produce "sclerosis in the planning system". It would seem to imply that, as a general rule, the infrastructure that might later be used by a utility company to supply water, electricity, gas or sewerage to a major development would fall to be considered as part of the development itself, with the potential consequence that decision-making on that development would have to await the utility company's own choice of its preferred means of supply. We do not find persuasive Mr Wolfe's submission that Sizewell C's need for a permanent supply of water can be distinguished from the comparable requirements of other development for such services.84. Standing back from the submissions made on either side, we can see no justification for an argument that in this case the rigour of "appropriate assessment" under the Habitats Regulations has been unlawfully avoided by the Secretary of State's treatment of the power station development itself and the arrangements yet to be made for the permanent supply of water to the power station as separate projects. What one sees here is a realistic and legitimate use of the "staged approach" approved by this court in Larkfleet and Forest of Dean District Council and by Advocate General Kokott in Commission v United Kingdom. It should be remembered that in the process of designating EN-1 and EN-6 as national policy statements, which necessarily preceded the development consent process, Sizewell, as a location for the development of a third nuclear power station, had already undergone assessment under the Habitats Regulations. The power station project has itself been subject to an "appropriate assessment" under regulation 63, in which all "sufficiently identifiable" effects were assessed as soon as they realistically could be assessed, among them the effects of a pipeline to Barsham. Whatever means of supplying water to the site is decided upon by NWL in the WRMP24 process will also be subject to the "appropriate assessment" regime, entailing – if necessary – cumulative assessment of the effects on European sites.”[41]That reasoning of course related to the factual position and the circumstances which were before the court in that challenge. But the relevant part of that rationale was that the supply of potable water to the site was not the subject of any firm proposal. Indeed there was at that time no proposed development for that purpose at all. The same is true in relation to the OFBs in the present case. The line of authority to which the Court of Appeal referred in [84] of the passage that I have just read out, in particular as to the realistic and legitimate use of a staged approach, is plainly relevant and applicable to the circumstances of the present claim.[42]In my view, essentially the same analysis applies in relation to paragraph 56 of the external hazards report. Here, also, it was rationally open to the defendant to take a staged approach and to conclude that consideration of cumulative effects of any change to the project, if and when OFBs are subsequently applied for, may be deferred to that later stage. At the present time, it was open to the defendant to conclude that the inchoate position stated in paragraph 56 of the external hazards report justified the deferral of any further appropriate assessment to the time when, if at all, the need for OFBs had arisen. See the Court of Appeal’s reasoning at [93] in its judgment in the first judicial review.[43]The claimant submitted that postponement of that assessment would inevitably result in the grant of development consent for the OFBs, should they subsequently be applied for. That concern is unfounded, for the reasons given in [95] of the judgment of the Court of Appeal - "[W]e do not accept Mr Wolfe's submission that there would be no proper assessment of the impacts of the permanent water supply at that later stage, and that the necessary approval would inevitably be granted, because, by then, the power station would be under construction. There is no evidential basis for assuming or inferring that the relevant regulators would fail to carry out their statutory duties to assess whether the permanent water supply would adversely affect the integrity of a European site and, if so, whether there were IROPI which justified approval. As the judge observed (at paragraph 102 of his judgment), if the benefits of granting consent for the permanent water supply were said to include the overall benefits of the power station being operational, the harms of the Sizewell C project would also have to be included in the assessment. Any failure by relevant regulators to interpret or apply the Habitats Regulations correctly would, of course, be susceptible of legal challenge".[44]The approach of the Court of Appeal in the first judicial review, in the passages to which I have referred, is of course an application of the precautionary principle.[45]Neither of the two European cases relied upon by the claimant in the present case - Grüne Liga Sachsen eV and Freistaat Sachsen [2016] PTSR 140 and Dansk Akvakultur [2023] PTSR 187 - is arguably in point for the reasons given by the defendant and the interested party in their respective skeleton arguments. There has been no failure of assessment in this case in accordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.

Summary and conclusions

[46]In summary, any future application for a change to the order to provide OFBs would itself need to be considered by the defendant, as competent authority, in accordance with his duty under regulation 9(3) of the 2017 Regulations. In particular, the need for appropriate assessment under regulation 63 in the light of the proposed change of the project would need to be assessed. As I have already said, that assessment would need to address both the potential for intra project in-combination effects and the likelihood of that change, considered in the context of the project as authorised by the Order, adversely affecting the integrity of protected nature conservation sites. The process of assessment then undertaken would, if necessary, be subject to judicial review by this court.[47]Given the fundamental uncertainty as to whether and if so, when OFBs may need to be provided in this case, and the fundamentally inchoate nature of any scheme or design for their provision, it was unarguably open to the defendant to conclude as he did in the minister's letter of 28 March 2025. The contention that his decision not to exercise his powers under paragraph 3(7) of Schedule 6 to the 2008 Act was in breach of his duty under regulations 9(3) or 63 of the 2017 Regulations, is wholly unarguable.[48]As to ground two, for the reasons I have given the contention that the letter of 28 March 2025 reveals a misunderstanding of those obligations is also hopeless. There was no arguable breach of the defendant’s Tameside duty of proper inquiry. The reasons given in the minister's letter for declining to exercise the powers under Schedule 6 of the 2008 Act were unarguably proper, intelligible, and adequate to explain to the claimant why that was the defendant’s decision. It follows that grounds three and four are also wholly unarguable.[49]In the light of these reasons, I am satisfied that this claim was bound to fail. The claimant has invested a factual and legal significance in paragraph 56 of the external hazards report, which it is simply incapable of supporting. Accordingly, permission to apply for judicial review is refused and the claim is certified as being totally without merit.

Order

Application refused. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk