Judge throws out judicial review request into £450m energy park
ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS has been dealt another blow after its latest attempt to block the Able Marine Energy Park (AMEP) on the South Bank of the Humber was rejected.
Sitting in the High Court of Justice Queen’s Bench Division, Mrs Justice Patterson yesterday refused the application by ABP seeking a judicial review of the Government’s decision to grant a Development Control Order (DCO) for the AMEP.
The energy park, part of the UK’s largest Enterprise Zone with the potential to create up to 4,000 jobs and planned to cover 906 acres, was given the green light in October.
However, the site has been the subject of a bitter row between Able UK and ABP, with port operator ABP filing two petitions to Parliament seeking a compromise on the energy park. The park involves the compulsory purchase of a triangle of land owned by ABP, which objected as it wants to build a new jetty in the same place.
But Able UK was granted a DCO to create the facility and ABP was ordered to sell it a strip of land required for a quay.
In the latest twist, ABP then sought a judicial review of the planning process that led to the government’s decision to grant the order.
However, Mrs Justice Patterson found against ABP on all the grounds it put forward in applying for judicial review, describing their claim as “unarguable”.
Peter Stephenson, Able’s executive chairman reacted to the decision, saying: “It is surely time for them to recognise the game is up.
“Their claims surrounding the so-called Killingholme Triangle, the small area of land which is needed for AMEP, have now been rejected by the hugely detailed and lengthy planning process, overseen by senior planning inspectors, a Government Minister, a Joint Parliamentary Committee — and now by the High Court.
He added: “Every other interest on the Humber, including the Local Enterprise Partnership, the local business community, local authorities, local Members of Parliament and their constituents, have looked on in despair as time after time a development of such importance to the area has been delayed and put in jeopardy by the actions of a single company.”
ABP can now seek to challenge the decision through an oral hearing.
However, Mr Stephenson said that would once again delay AMEP and “yet again highlight that ABP are more concerned with defending their near monopoly position on the Humber against the interests of the whole region and the UK for that matter.”
An ABP spokesperson said: “We are naturally disappointed at this decision by the court. We will carefully consider the reasons given before commenting further.”
