The Project comprises a new gas-fired generating station; a CO2 pipeline network for collecting CO2 from a cluster of local industries on Teesside; a CO2 compressor station and a section of export pipeline to the Endurance aquifer in the North Sea. The offshore section of the export pipeline and offshore storage facility were subject to a separate consenting process and did not form part of the Project. Taken together, the wider NZT project will initially capture up to 4 million tonnes of CO2 per annum, with capacity for up to 10mt per annum, and will make a significant contribution towards achieving the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions target by 2050.

The Project was promoted by Net Zero Teesside Power Limited (a partnership between bp and Equinor) and Net Zero North Sea Storage Limited (a partnership between bp. Equinor, National Gride, Shell and Total) with bp as the lead operator. Following a 6-month examination, the Examining authority recommended the grant of development consent subject to confirmation that the Environment Agency was content with the approach to modelling nutrient nitrogen. The decision was delayed while the Secretary of State sought further information, including in relation to the modelling of nutrient nitrogen. Both Natural England and the Environment Agency subsequently confirmed their satisfaction with the applicant’s modelling.

The Secretary of State found that all aspects of the Project, including those parts subject to a s.35 Direction, should be determined pursuant to s.104 Planning Act 2008 because, in contradistinction to the position in EFW Group Ltd v Secretary of State for BEIS [2021] EWHC 2697 (Admin), the s.35 Direction specified that NPS EN-1 should have effect in respect of the specified elements of the Project. She found that the wider NZT project could facilitate a significant reduction in CO2 emissions but that the Project itself would result in GHG emissions that weighed significantly against the Project in the planning balance, as well as significant adverse visual effects. However, the benefits of the Project outweighed those impacts such that there was no conflict with s.104(7) Planning Act. The Project was in accordance with national policy, including the NPSs and the Secretary of State concluded that there was a strong case for granting development consent.

A copy of the Secretary of State’s decision can be found here.

Hereward Phillpot KC and Isabella Tafur, instructed by Pinsent Masons, acted for the Applicants in promoting the DCO.