Atkinson v Secretary of State for Transport & Anor

An environmental statement may be supplemented by information obtained through objections, representations and inquiry procedures. The decision-maker must assess the likely significant effects and main environmental effects, but need not trace every conceivable consequence.

Subsequent approvals may be considered where sufficient information enables the decision-maker to conclude that effects are unlikely to be significant or that suitable mitigation will be secured. The adequacy of the information is primarily for the decision-maker, subject to Wednesbury review.

The claimant sought judicial review under section 22 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 of the decision to make the River Tyne (Tunnels) Order 2005. The proposed order authorised construction of a new road tunnel and was accompanied by an environmental statement.

The claimant argued that the statement inadequately addressed disposal of excavation and dredging materials, possible sea disposal, landfill capacity, haul routes, and the noise and air-quality effects of waste traffic. He also argued that later information and regulatory controls could not cure the alleged deficiencies.

The issues were whether supplementary information could be considered, how far reliance could be placed on subsequent procedures, and whether the information before the Secretary of State was legally adequate.

1. Application refused. The Secretary of State could consider the environmental statement together with further information supplied during the inquiry and subsequent consultation. Section 14(3A) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 implicitly required consideration of representations and information relating to the environmental statement. A fresh statement was not required merely because supplementary information had been provided.
2. A decision-maker may take account of subsequent consents and regulatory controls, but cannot simply leave assessment of a potentially significant impact to another authority. The decision-maker must have information which, together with the requirement for later consent, enables a conclusion that the effects are unlikely to be significant or that appropriate mitigation will be secured.
3. The adequacy of an environmental statement under the Transport and Works Procedure Rules was for the Secretary of State, subject to review on Wednesbury grounds. The court could not substitute its own assessment of the amount of information required.
4. The statutory focus was on significant effects and main effects, rather than every conceivable causal consequence. Relevant considerations included the distance along the chain of causation, the probable level of impact and any applicable regulatory regime.
5. The Secretary of State was entitled to accept that sea disposal was not part of the proposal and to rely on information about spoil volumes, access routes and later controls over landfill sites and haul routes. The environmental statement, supplemented by inquiry evidence and proposed controls, was adequate. The claim was dismissed.