Regina (Buckinghamshire County Council and others) v. Secretary of State for Transport

• Published date: 01 July 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12080
• Author: Alistair Mills,James Maurici
• Date: 01 July 2014

Case Note

Regina (Buckinghamshire County Council and

others) v. Secretary of State for Transport

James Maurici and Alistair Mills

The United Kingdom Supreme Court has considered

the requirements of environmental impact assessment

and strategic environmental assessment in the context

of a high speed rail scheme to be introduced by parlia-

mentary procedure. The case is important for its

detailed analysis of how parliamentary processes

relate to the requirements of European Union environ-

mental law. The Supreme Court has also made reveal-

ing comments about its view of the proper relationship

between the domestic and European legal order.

INTRODUCTION

On 22 January 2014, the United Kingdom Supreme

Court gave judgment in three conjoined appeals:

Regina (Buckinghamshire County Council and others)

v. Secretary of State for Transport;Regina (HS2

Action Alliance Ltd) v. Same and Regina (Heathrow

Hub Ltd and another) v. Same.1All three appeals

involved judicial review proceedings seeking to chal-

lenge the lawfulness of the British government’s deci-

sion to promote the high speed rail link from London to

the north of England known as ‘HS2’. The route of HS2

is to run from London to Birmingham (phase 1) and

then to split into two separate corridors – one via Man-

chester and the other via the East Midlands (phase 2).

The combined route is known as the ‘Y-network’, as that

is (roughly) the shape of the proposed new lines.

The decision was announced in the government paper,

‘High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future – Deci-

sions and Next Steps’.2It was referred to in the proceed-

ings as ‘the DNS’. The decision followed formal public

consultation on the high speed rail proposals, including

the proposed Y-network, and the preferred route for

phase 1. There was a consultation report entitled ‘High

Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future’,3accompa-

nied by an Appraisal of Sustainability, and other eco-

nomic and technical studies. The Secretary of State for

Transport’s foreword described the consultation as ‘one

of the largest and most wide-ranging ever undertaken

by government’.4

The Appellants before the Supreme Court were: (i) the

HS2 Action Alliance, a not-for-profit organization

working with over 90 affiliated action groups and resi-

dents’ associations in opposition to the HS2 scheme;

(ii) a number of local authorities along the proposed

route of phase 1 of HS2, all of which are members of the

‘51M group’, a group of local authorities which joined

together in a national campaign to oppose the HS2 rail

proposals; and (iii) Heathrow Hub Ltd (HHL), a private

company which has for many years promoted the

concept of a multi-modal transport hub at Heathrow

Airport, integrating Heathrow with road, conventional

mainline railway and high speed rail services.

The various judicial review proceedings all failed at first

instance in the High Court and before the Court of

Appeal.5

The main issues raised in the proceedings were: (i)

whether the DNS should have been preceded by a

strategic environmental assessment under Directive

2001/42 on the assessment of the effects of certain

plans and programmes on the environment (the SEA

Directive);6and (ii) whether the hybrid Bill procedure,

1UK Supreme Court, Regina (Buckinghamshire County Council and

others) v. Secretary of State for Transport;Regina (HS2 Action Alli-

ance Ltd) v. Same and Regina (Heathrow Hub Ltd and another) v.

Same, [2014] UKSC 3; [2014] 1 WLR 324 (‘R. v. Secretary of State for

Transport’).

2UK Department for Transport, High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s

Future – Consultation (February 2011), found at: <https://www.gov

.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/3648/

hs2-decisions-and-next-steps.pdf>.

3UK Department for Transport, High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s

Future – Decisions and Next Steps (January 2012), found at: <https://

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/

file/3648/hs2-decisions-and-next-steps.pdf>.

4Ibid., at 6.

5See [2013] EWHC 481 (Admin) and [2014] 1 CMLR 10.

6Directive 2001/42/EC of 27 June 2001 on the Assessment of the

Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment, [2001]

OJ L197/30.

bs_bs_banner

Review of European Community & International Environmental Law

RECIEL 23 (2) 2014. ISSN 2050-0386 DOI: 10.1111/reel.12080

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

275