Sizewell C Nuclear power plant opponents to appeal case to Supreme Court

Together Against Sizewell C (TASC), joined with Stop Sizewell C and Suffolk Coastal Friends of the Earth, argue the environmental impact of supplying the needed water to the £20bn plant was not considered as part of the planning application.

In July 2022, the then-business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, gave development consent to the project.

But TASC launched a crowdfunding campaign and raised funds to fight the decision.

Their claim was heard by the High Court just under a year later, in March 2023, and refused.

TASC then appealed to the Court of Appeal, raising the following two issues:

• Was the Secretary of State wrong in law to treat the permanent supply of potable water, which was necessary for the operation of the power station, as not being part of the same project for the purposes of carrying out an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations (ground 1)?
• If the Secretary of State was right to regard the permanent water supply as a separate project, did he err in failing to carry out, under the Habitats Regulations, a cumulative assessment of its effects together with those of the power station itself (ground 2)?

At the Court of Appeal in December 2023, Sir Keith Lindblom refused the appeal, concluding that the High Court's decision did not err in refusing permission on any of the grounds. Lady Justice Andrews and Lord Justice Lewis agreed.

TASC is now submitting an appeal to the Supreme Court on the issue.

The group is represented by Leigh Day solicitors. Barristers David Wolfe KC of Matrix Chambers, Ashley Bowes of Landmark Chambers and Ruchi Parekh of Cornerstone Barristers are acting for the claimants.

According to Leigh Day, the group is arguing that it is "clear" that a desalination plant will be needed to guarantee a permanent water supply of two million litres per day for the plant.

A press release from the firm said: "The environmental impact of acquiring such a supply was not included in the planning application for the nuclear power plant and therefore was neither assessed nor taken into account by the Business Secretary."

TASC said the issue of a water supply should not have been treated as a separate issue to the power plant application.

It also argued that the company could have decided at any time to proceed with a desalination plant but chose to keep open the option of a supply provided by Northumbrian Water (NWL).

In addition, it is argued that if the plant did rely on NWL for its potable water, the scale and location of the power station would necessitate additional infrastructure and the impacts of this, including harm to sites of vulnerable habitat protected by European (now domestic) law, have not been assessed.

Leigh Day solicitor Rowan Smith said: "Fundamentally, our client is arguing that, without a permanent water supply, Sizewell C cannot operate, so the environmental impacts of sourcing that water needed to be assessed before development consent was given.

"The failure to do so was made even worse, so they say, given Suffolk is in drought and has vulnerable habitats, which need to be protected. We sincerely hope the Supreme Court grants permission to appeal for this decision to be looked at again."

Adam Carey