Dale Vince-led coalition cleared to push for NPS judicial review

The government faces a High Court bid to force a review of its planning regime for energy infrastructure projects because the underpinning policy document does not reflect new policies to tackle climate change.

Ecotricity’s founder Dale Vince, alongside Guardian columnist George Monbiot and anti-Brexit campaigning lawyer Jolyon Maughan’s Good Law Project, has issued proceedings for a judicial review of the energy National Policy Statement (NPS).

The three claimants argue that the existing NPS contains a presumption in favour of fossil fuel developments, such as the five new gas turbines proposed by EDF at its West Burton C power station.

The grounds also include that the NPS, which was published in 2011, is out of date because it fails to take into account the government’s subsequent commitments to tackle carbon emissions, including the 2015 Paris climate change agreement and the net-zero goal enacted by Parliament nearly a year ago.

Their claims states that the NPS, which provides the framework for determining whether energy infrastructure projects should receive planning permission, is being used to push through fossil fuel powered developments.

The judicial review follows a ruling of the Court of Appeal in March that the Airports NPS was unlawful for failing to take account of the Paris Agreement.

The energy NPS was used by ex-business, energy and industrial strategy (BEIS) secretary of state Andrea Leadsom to justify consent last October for Drax’s new 3.6MW gas-fired power plant in North Yorkshire.

The High Court ruled last week that the consent was legal despite being made against the recommendation of Leadsom’s appointed planning inspector.

The judicial review proceedings have been issued after the department responded to a letter setting out the claim, which stated that the government is “already actively considering” a review of the NPS.

But given the “broad and complex nature” of the issues involved in energy development, it says officials must give “careful consideration” before advising ministers on whether a review is “appropriate”.