Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council (R) v Secretary of State for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWHC 1847 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/11340/2007 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 11 July 2008 |
[2008] EWHC 1847 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Mr Justice Sullivan
CO/11340/2007
Mr Geoffrey Stephenson and Mr Kelvin Rutledge (instructed by Legal and Democratic Services Division, Town Hall, Fabian Road, South Bank, Redcar & Cleveland, Yorkshire TS6 9AR) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr John Litton (Mr Gwion Lewis appeared for the purposes of judgment only) (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Mr William Norris QC and Mr Lordon Nardell (instructed by Messrs Bond Pearce LLP, Bristol BS1 6DZ) appeared on behalf of the Interested Party
Introduction
This is a rolled-up hearing of the claimant's application for permission to apply for judicial review, with the substantive hearing to follow if permission is granted, in respect of the defendant's decision to give consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 (“the 1989 Act”) to the construction and operation of an offshore wind farm with a generating capacity of up to 100 megawatts, comprising up to 30 wind turbines off the mouth of the River Tees at Redcar. The defendant's decision is contained in a decision letter dated 17th September 2007. The interested party had applied for consent under section 36 some three and a half years earlier, on 18th March 2004. The wind farm site, which covers an area of approximately 3 kilometres by 1.5 kilometres, lies about 1.5 kilometres offshore between the mouth of the River Tees and Redcar. The 30 wind turbines have a maximum tip height of 130 metres and will be positioned in three rows, approximately 600 metres apart, each containing ten turbines. The spacing between the turbines in the rows is approximately 300 metres.
The turbines are each rated at between 2.3 and 3.6 megawatts. Each wind turbine incorporates a transformer which transforms the current generated by the turbine to 33 kilovolts. Interconnecting 33 kilovolt subsea electrical cables link the turbines in the three rows.
The wind farm is linked by three subsea 33 kilovolt cables laid in a single trench to an onshore substation (originally proposed to be at Warrenby), where the voltage is transformed to 66 kilovolts. From the onshore substation underground cables link with the local Northern Electric Distribution (NEDL) grid at NEDL's Lackenby substation.
The interested party's letter dated 18th March 2004 to the defendant explained that an application for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) was being made to the claimant, as the onshore local planning authority, for both the underground cabling linking the wind farm between mean low water springs and the onshore substation, and for the substation itself (“the onshore application”).
The onshore application was not determined by the claimant and was withdrawn by the interested party on 2nd April 2008. On 5th June 2008 a new onshore application was made in respect of a relocated substation.
On receipt of the interested party's application under section 36, the defendant notified all those who might have had an interest in the application, including the claimant, and invited representations.
The claimant objected to the proposal by letter dated 3rd August 2004:
“CONSULTATION ON OFFSHORE WIND FARM DEVELOPMENT AT REDCAR
I refer to the above scheme which has been forwarded to this Council for comment.
The proposal was considered by the Planning Committee on 29 July 2004 who resolved as follows:
Whilst the Council supports the Government's drive to secure a substantial proportion of the country's energy from sustainable resources, it OBJECTS to the proposal on the following grounds:
I The proximity of the proposed wind farm to the shoreline at Redcar (approximately 1.5km offshore); the consequent visual impact and the adverse effect on the visual amenities of the Redcar area. The Council consider that the same rules should apply in respect of this site regarding distance from the shore as have been applied in the second round of licensing.
II Concerned that the proposal will have an adverse effect on birds, a view which is endorsed in the objections made by RSPB and Teesmouth Bird Club. The application should not be determined unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA; bird movements and populations and marine ecology.
III Consider that the development will have an adverse effect on the regeneration of Redcar, including the development of Coatham Enclosure and tourism.
IV Concerned that potential contamination issues have not been fully investigated.
V Further consideration should be given to investigating the coastal process to ensure that any changes to sand movements do not have an adverse effect on the Redcar Beach area and if so suitable mitigation measures are imposed.
If the Secretary of State is mindful to grant consent then would request that the following conditions are also imposed…"
(Two conditions were suggested, one relating to noise and the other dealing with the removal of the turbines at the end of the wind farm's operational lifetime.)
The letter concluded with a request:
“… that consideration be given by the Government to asking the developer for a contribution toward regeneration schemes in the Redcar area in order to mitigate against any possible adverse effects."
That was the extent of the claimant's representations to the defendant prior to the decision letter.
Invalidity
Notwithstanding the fact that the claimant had not made any objection to the procedure adopted by the interested party, and accepted by the defendant, of making separate applications for consent to the offshore elements of the scheme (to the defendant under the 1989 Act) and for planning permission for the onshore elements of the scheme (to the claimant under the 1990 Act), it contended for the first time in amended grounds of claim, served after an oral permission hearing before Collins J on 13th March 2008, that the section 36 consent granted by the defendant was invalid because it related to part only of the proposed generating station. Section 36(1) of the 1989 Act, as amended by the Energy Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”), provides, so far as material, that:
“… a generating station shall not be constructed at a relevant place (within the meaning of section 4), and a generating station at such a place shall not be extended or operated except in accordance with a consent granted by the Secretary of State."
Section 64 contains the following, non-exhaustive definition of “generating station":
“'generating station', in relation to a generating station wholly or mainly driven by water, includes all structures and works for holding or channelling water for a purpose directly related to the generation of electricity by that station;"
Mr Stephenson submitted on behalf of the claimant that “a competent application for consent [under section 36] must be for the whole of a generating station within the meaning of the 1989 Act and a consent likewise must be for the whole."
He submitted that the offshore turbines alone were not a “generating station" because they were not capable of producing consumable power. The cables connecting the wind farm to the shore, and the onshore substation which transformed the current from 33 kilovolts to 66 kilovolts, were all component parts of an overall scheme whereby the electricity generated by the turbines offshore was converted into a usable form on land. All of the components were therefore part of the “generating station" and the defendant had no power to grant consent under section 36 for part only of a generating station.
The claimant relied on a witness statement dated 12th June 2008 of Mr Loftus, a Chartered Mechanical Engineer and Project Director of Scott Wilson Ltd (Engineering Consultants). I granted the claimant permission to rely on this witness statement even though it was served well out of time.
Mr Loftus says, inter alia:
“2. I have been asked to consider exactly what comprises a 'generating station' and in particular whether such an expression includes elements such as the transformer equipment. In so far as offshore developments are concerned, I have always regarded a generating station as including not only the turbines themselves but also the necessary undersea cabling, the transformer equipment and the associated sub-station.
3. In relation to the National Grid, a 'generating station' is of no use unless the power provided by the turbines is converted into an appropriate voltage. Thus, the transformer equipment, the underground cabling, and the associated sub-station are essential not only to route the power into the National Grid, but to make the power usable.
…
6. I have attached a simple diagram of an off-shore wind farm produced by the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA). BWEA is the trade and professional body for the U.K. wind and marine renewables industries. It will be seen that this shows the transformers and the substation as elements within the whole scheme. This is as I have always understood the position to be."
In paragraph 7 Mr Loftus referred to two papers and continued:
“These papers support the view that windfarm projects require transformers, switchgear and subsea and onshore cables in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association v West Sussex County Council
...(Minutes paragraph 13). 113 He relied on R(Redcar and Cleveland BC) v Sec of State for Business etc and EDF (Northern Offshire Wind) Ltd [2008] EWHC 1847 (Sullivan J). He also argued that while the numbers of objections were put before the Committee, the results of an opinion poll conducted......
-
R (Finn-Kelcey) v Milton Keynes Council
...As Sullivan J said in R (RedcarCleveland Borough Council) v. Secretary of State for Business, EnterpriseRegulatory Reform [2008] EWHC 1847 (Admin) “The need for promptness in challenging planning decisions within this policy framework is particularly acute. Delay in challenging decisions i......
-
Dulce Packard And Others For Judicial Review
...Company LLP v Moray Council and British Land Company plc [2007] CSOH 88 · R (Redcar etc.) v Secretary of State for B, E and R [2008] EWHC 1847 (Admin) · British Railways Board v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993] 3 PLR 125 · Save Britain's Heritage v No.1 Poultry Ltd [1991] 1 WLR......
-
Overview of the Regulatory Framework affecting Wind and Solar Energy Developments
...hold a public inquiry 22 before a decision can be made on the Order. 20 R (Redcar & Cleveland BC) v Secretary of State & EDF Energy [2008] EWHC 1847 (Admin). 21 See also guidance for s.36 consents issued by the DECC in October 2007 (‘The consenting process for onshore generating stations ab......
-
Table of Cases
...214, [2020] PTSR 1446 4 R (Redcar & Cleveland BC) v Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform & EDF Energy [2008] EWHC 1847 (Admin), [2008] 7 WLUK 365 24 R (Sienkiewicz) v South Somerset District Council [2013] EWHC 4090 (Admin), [2014] JPL 620 31 R (West Berkshire DC......