Aarhus watch: a UK breach, and a fudge

7 September 2013 by

023stirling1DM_468x312ACCC/C/2012/68 read draft findings here and ACCC/C/2010/45 read findings here

Two interesting decisions from the Geneva-based Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (ACCC) about whether the UK planning system complies with the UN-ECE Aarhus Convention.

The first was given excellent recent coverage in the Independent – a Scottish wind farm case where UK plans for renewable energy had not received the public consultation which Article 7 of the Convention required. The second, which promised much (see my previous post), ducked the issues in a rather unsatisfactory way.

Windfarms in Argyll

In the first, Communication 68, Ms. Christine Metcalfe, for the Avich and Kilchrenan Community Council, said that the UK and the European Union had failed to comply with their obligations in relation to the UK’s renewable energy programmes and two related projects, for an onshore wind farm (Carriag Gheal) and a 35km access route in Argyll, Scotland.

Ms Metcalfe said that the authorities at the EU, UK and Scottish administrative levels failed to provide information to the public, as required by Articles 4 and 5, about the implementation of the renewable energy programme and these two specific projects. She also said that due to lack of transparency, effective public participation was impeded, contrary to articles 6 and 7. Finally, there are no adequate review procedures for members of the public to challenge the failures of access to information and public participation, as required by article 9(1) and 9(2), while the costs for engaging in such procedures are prohibitively high, contrary to article 9(4) – the last being very familiar stuff in previous ACCC adjudications.

She claimed the UK’s renewables policies have been designed in such a way that they have denied the public the right to be informed about, or to ascertain, the alleged benefits in reducing CO2 and harmful emissions from wind power, or the negative effects of wind power on health, the environment and the economy.

The ACCC made one finding of breach. Article 7 requires that states shall enable public participation in “plans and programmes relating to the environment. No such public participation occurred in respect of the UK’s 2010 National Renewable Energy Plan (NREAP) made under the EU Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC. The NREAP was based upon an earlier UK document, a Renewable Energy Strategy (RES) published in July 2009, which had had some public consultation.

  • The NREAP was a “plan or programme” within Article 7 of the Convention, and therefore required public participation. A
  • s the ACCC observed

The fact that the UK’s Renewable Energy Strategy, which informed the NREAP, was subject to public participation does not affect this conclusion, given their different legal status and functions in the EU and UK legal framework respectively.

Hence, the finding of breach. The ACCC dismissed the other claims.


Quite extraordinary, that the government should not invite public participation on a plan which underpins the UK’s implementation of its EU climate change obligations – not least given the long-running and widespread controversy about wind farms and other forms of renewable energy. There is the intriguing prospect that objectors will argue that the unlawfulness of the NREAP should affect planning decisions taken, and to be taken, on the the basis of the policies stated within it.

Supermarkets in Kent

The other recent decision (Communication 45) arose out of the grant of planning permission to a Sainsbury’s superstore in Hythe, Kent, and the difficulties which the objectors faced both before and after determination in having their say, both in and out of court – but the complaint ranged far and wide.  It was linked to Communication 60, where an individual complained that he was not allowed to address orally a number of London Borough planning Committees; he said that the law should enable this to be done in all cases.

The combined challenges sought to revisit the imbalance in the system arising out of the lack of appeal for objectors and the substantive and procedural difficulties inherent in judicial review. The lack of substantive review was put well by the first applicant:

To comply with Article 9(2) and 9(3) it must be possible for a court or other body to make a judgment as to whether the decision, act or omission under scrutiny was within the law. To do so, the court has to be able to establish the facts of the case and then apply the relevant law to those facts. This is not possible in the UK. The only option usually available for third parties is judicial review. In judicial review proceedings, the court cannot investigate or make findings on disputed evidence or visit the location to which the case relates.

Judging from [86], the Committee has done no more than say what it said in previous findings– it maintains its concerns about the UK’s way of conducting judicial review, but it does not make a finding of non-compliance. This is unhelpful, not least because the Court of Appeal here in Evans (see my post here) has picked on this unwillingness to make a finding as undermining the significance of the ACCC’s views, when applied in domestic courts.

The complaint about a lack of procedure to allow objectors to seek enforcement of planning conditions sounds a bit pernickety, but is in fact important. Why, said the challengers, could not objectors play a part in this enforcement process – not least because planning conditions are often designed to mitigate the long-term environmental effect of a project, and hard pressed local authorities may not have the time or money to take on dilatory developers? Or in Aarhus terms, why was there not a breach of Article 9(3) of the Convention which enabled parties to challenge acts or omissions both by public authorities and private persons (i.e. challenging developers not complying with planning conditions)?

This seems like a good point, but one which the ACCC ducked, apparently because it was raised too late in the day. If so, this is not a very sensible response if the ACCC wants to keep its casework down. It is a point of general interest which will come round again.

The other big theme in Communication 45 is its challenge to the way in which key decisions about funding are taken before any meaningful public involvement in development proposals. There are a whole welter of bodies and processes (Local Strategic Partnerships being replaced by Local Enterprise Partnerships, which draft Local Investment Plans which play a part in paving the way towards major developments proceeding). They are not public bodies in the way that a local authority is, subject to open meetings and the like; in practice, they are said to be dominated by local business interests. It was argued that there was no public participation in the preparation of these plans for development.

Defra countered by arguing that any decisions by these bodies did not fall within Article 7 – they were not plans or programmes relating to the environment, and such plans and programmes only came later when land-use plans were drawn up, and there were public participation provisions in respect of the latter.

The ACCC’s findings at [79]-[82] amount to a magnificent fudge. LIPs, and “possibly” LSPs or LEPs “may well be” part of decisions on plans or programmes for the purposes of Article 7 of Aarhus. They seem to be “evolving into a de facto element of planning.”  If the adoption of LIPs were to prejudice public participation, this would engage the UK’s responsibilities under the Convention. However, because the practice for preparation of such LIPs has not crystallised across the UK, the ACCC was “not in a position to conclude whether [the UK] fails to comply with its obligations from Article 7.” Public participation in the preparation of the LIPs and related procedures is “highly appropriate.” But the lack of decision is almost an invitation to keep these arrangements all a bit vague so that business does not have to trouble itself with public participation before it has reached decisions which matter.

Such non-decision making is worse than useless. If taken seriously, it casts a shadow over the legality of the present system without telling either party what the answer is. Part of the problem may lie in the width of the complaint – one of systematic breach – but, even allowing for that, surely the ACCC could do better than it has done – whichever side of the argument one may be on.

So nearly but not quite a breach of Article 7 – but with its observations phrased in such terms that government can ignore it if it chooses.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: