In May 2025, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales delivered a pivotal ruling concerning the controversial gas-fired electricity generating station planned for Teesside, which is designed to incorporate carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. This case, Andrew Boswell, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero & Anor, scrutinised the validity of the planning decision that had previously been upheld by the High Court. Central to the appeal was whether the Secretary of State had inadequately assessed the anticipated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions resulting from the development, raising significant questions about environmental accountability within energy policy.
Andrew Boswell, a climate campaigner, contended that the approval granted to Net Zero Teesside Power Ltd and Net Zero North Sea Storage Ltd did not sufficiently consider the ecological ramifications of the GHG emissions. Earlier, in August 2024, the High Court had dismissed Boswell’s claims, asserting that the project was firmly rooted in national planning and energy policies, and that it aligned with the UK's climate commitments. This judgment followed a pattern observed in earlier cases, where courts have generally upheld developers' rights against claims alleging inadequate environmental assessments.
The Court of Appeal's deliberation focused on three pivotal grounds: the appropriateness of the guidance used for GHG emissions assessment by the Secretary of State, the adequacy of the National Policy Statement EN-1 in addressing significance assessments, and the legitimacy of the conclusions regarding the project's environmental impact. The judges—Sir Keith Lindblom, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, and Lord Justice Holgate—emphasised that their role was not to second-guess policy decisions but to ensure legal compliance in the decision-making process. They boldly reaffirmed that environmental impact assessments must focus on legality, leaving policy direction to the government.
While the appellate judges recognised the significant emissions involved in the Teesside project, they stood by the Secretary of State's contextualisation of these emissions within the broader UK climate strategy, which aims for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. They concluded that the project's emissions, though considerable, were necessary within the framework of national energy stability, effectively balancing environmental impacts with urgent energy needs.
This ruling sets a notable precedent for future energy project assessments in the UK, signalling a judicial inclination to contextualise emissions within national policy priorities. The decision underscores the necessity of maintaining a legal framework that allows for informed evaluations of environmental impacts while recognising the pressing demands for robust energy infrastructure.
Contrasting with recent judicial milestones, such as the Supreme Court’s ruling that emphasised the need to assess GHG emissions from oil developments, this case illustrates the ongoing tension between climate accountability and energy development in the UK. Such rulings compel regulators to consider the implications of their decisions on both local and global scales, especially when tackling the intricate interplay between fossil fuel projects and climate commitments.
As the landscape of energy policy continues to evolve, the Court of Appeal’s decision reinforces the vital role of thorough legal assessments in planning decisions. It highlights the challenge of striking a harmonious balance between environmental considerations and the necessities of the modern energy grid, reflecting the complex dynamics of meeting national energy demands in a climate-conscious era. This judgement ultimately reaffirms the intricate relationship between environmental law, energy policy, and the legal obligations of planning authorities, setting a significant benchmark for future infrastructure projects.
Reference Map 1. Paragraphs 1, 6 2. Paragraphs 1, 4 3. Paragraphs 1, 6 4. Paragraphs 3, 5 5. Paragraph 5 6. Paragraph 6 7. Paragraph 1
Source: Noah Wire Services