What you can do now
Our Facebook group has almost 4500 members just like you who are facing an uncertain future at the hands of National Grid. It is a great place to find and share up-to-date information and be a part of the campaign..
Share, share, share!
Contact your MP : to find contact details for your local MP HERE
SEND YOUR FEEDBACK TO THE PROPOSALS
Sign the petition
We are calling for Ed Miliband to removed from the decision making process of Nationally significant Energy infrastructure. We believe that there is sufficient evidence to show that he is unable to make balanced decisions in his haste to reach net zero - whilst we believe that is worthy goal it should not be at all costs, projects need to be assessed on merit not just a net zero target.
Below is the supporting legal evidence we feel should be applied.
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, has demonstrated predetermination in favour of green energy infrastructure, compromising his ability to assess planning decisions impartially. It calls for his recusal from infrastructure planning decisions, particularly those involving compulsory acquisition and NSIP designation, under principles of natural justice, Wednesbury reasonableness, and apparent bias.
Legal Framework
Predetermination and Bias
- Localism Act 2011, Section 25: Codifies that decision-makers must not have a closed mind when making decisions.
- Magill v Porter [2002] 2 AC 357: Established the test for apparent bias—whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there is a real possibility of bias.
- Kelton v Wiltshire Council [2015] EWHC 2853 (Admin): Reinforces that councillors must avoid the appearance of bias even if actions are above reproach.
- Wednesbury Unreasonableness (Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corp [1948]): A decision is unlawful if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.
Application to Ministerial Conduct
- Ministers are bound by public law principles, including impartiality and procedural fairness.
- Bias and Predetermination in Planning Law – Landmark Chambers: Notes that even elected officials must not act with a closed mind when exercising quasi-judicial functions.
- Westferry Printworks Case (2020): Planning decision quashed due to apparent bias and timing manipulation by Secretary of State.
Evidence of Predetermination
Public Statements
Miliband’s speech at the Energy UK Conference outlined a “clean energy imperative,” framing green infrastructure as the solution to all national challenges.
He stated: “British-based renewable energy is the cheapest and fastest way to reduce vulnerability to volatile global fossil fuel markets.”
Policy Commitments
- Miliband’s 2030 Mission Control plan commits to 95% clean energy on the grid, requiring rapid infrastructure rollout regardless of local opposition or strategic planning delays.
- His department’s NESO report was criticized for using inflated gas and carbon price assumptions to justify grid expansion.
Public Criticism - Centre for Policy Studies: Accused Miliband of “spin and ideology rather than data and evidence,” citing flawed assumptions in his energy plans.
- City AM: Warned that Miliband’s net zero obsession risks alienating the public and undermining the energy transition.
. Implications for Planning Decisions - Miliband’s ideological commitment to green energy risks overriding:
- Strategic need assessments.
- Procedural fairness in NSIP designation.
- Landowner rights under Section 122 of the Planning Act 2008.
His role in approving or influencing infrastructure planning decisions may breach:
- Natural justice principles.
- Wednesbury reasonableness.
- Apparent bias tests under Magill and Westferry precedents.
Recommendations
Ministerial Recusal
Ed Miliband should be formally recused from infrastructure planning decisions involving:
- NSIP designation.
- Compulsory acquisition powers.
- Strategic grid rollout.
Parliamentary Oversight
- A Select Committee investigation into predetermination risks in infrastructure planning.
- Review of ministerial statements and NESO modelling assumptions.
- Automatic government funded Judicial review into ALL projects Miliband has approved since taking post.
Legislative Reform
- Amend Planning Act 2008 to require independent review of ministerial decisions where strategic need is disputed.
- Review section 122 of the Planning Act 2008 and limit its use by private businesses and protect the rights of landowners.
- Introduce statutory safeguards against ideological bias in infrastructure planning.
Data Protection
Important news
It has come to light during the planning process for Norwich to Tilbury that personal details have been made available to the public within consultation documents. National Grids Privacy Policy does not make clear that these details will be shared.
Based on the National Grid Privacy Notice, they do not have lawful grounds to publish highly sensitive personal details like your name, address, or mortgage provider in publicly accessible documents. Here’s why:
What the policy allows to be made public
- Consultation feedback: If you submit comments during a planning application consultation, those comments (and potentially your name if you include it) may be shared with the Secretary of State, Examining Authority, and members of the public who request access.
- This is tied to legal obligations around transparency in infrastructure planning.
What the policy does not allow
- Addresses, mortgage providers, or other financial details: These fall under special categories of personal data and are not listed anywhere in the policy as information that can be lawfully published.
- The policy makes clear that personal data is only shared externally when:
- Required by law (e.g., regulators, law enforcement).
- Necessary for contracts (e.g., land rights agreements).
- With your explicit consent (e.g., marketing).
Legal basis
- UK Data Protection Law (UK GDPR + Data Protection Act 2018) requires that any disclosure of personal data must have a lawful basis. Publishing mortgage provider details or home addresses in public documents would not meet those criteria unless there was a very specific legal requirement (which the policy does not cite).
- Instead, National Grid emphasizes strict controls and safeguards when sharing data with contractors or government bodies.
Conclusion: They may lawfully publish consultation feedback (and possibly your name if you provide it), but not your address, mortgage provider, or other sensitive financial/personal details. Those remain protected and would only be shared under strict legal or contractual circumstances — never as part of publicly accessible documents.
