The Appellant alleged that the Secretary of State acted unlawfully in dealing with its complaint that the Interested Parties had “stifled” or “neutralised” the ability of landowners facing possible compulsory acquisition to present objections to and information about proposals for which development consent was sought. It was said that this was the effect of the Heads of Terms that the Interested Parties had agreed with various landowners before and during the examination into the two applications, which included non-objection and confidentiality clauses.

The Court of Appeal held that:

(i)    The use of non-objection clauses by the Interested Parties was legitimate; and
(ii)    The Secretary of State lawfully addressed the Appellant’s complaint.

The Supreme Court refused permission to appeal on the basis that the appeal did not raise an arguable point of law.

This decision follows the refusal of permission to appeal by the Supreme Court on 31 May 2024 in a separate challenge to the same decisions: R (Substation Action Save East Suffolk Ltd v. Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2024] EWCA Civ 12.

Mark Westmoreland Smith KC and Jonathan Welch, instructed by the Government Legal Department, acted on behalf of the Secretary of State, and Hereward Phillpot KC and Hugh Flanagan, instructed by Shepherd & Wedderburn, acted on behalf of East Anglia One North Ltd and East Anglia Two Ltd.