Appeal lodged over High Court ruling that A5 scheme cannot proceed
The minister has insisted she is determined to see the ambitious roads project completed, despite the setback in the High Court in June.
Advertisement
Then Mr Justice McAlinden quashed the Stormont Executive's move to approve the £1.2 billion roads scheme following a legal challenge from a group including residents, farmers and landowners.
Road signs for the A5 on the outskirts of Aughnacloy, Northern Ireland. Photo: Liam McBurney/PA.
The judge said the proposals breached sections of Northern Ireland's Climate Change Act as they did not demonstrate how they would comply with the commitment to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
There have been more than 50 deaths on the A5, which links Derry with Aughnacloy in Co Tyrone, since 2006.
A scheme to turn the road into a dual carriageway was first approved by the Executive in 2007, but it has been held up by legal challenges and uncertainty over funding ever since.
Advertisement
Speaking as the appeal was lodged on Wednesday, Ms Kimmins said: 'I am determined to see this project go ahead and therefore it is important that we appeal the decision made in the High Court on June 23.
'Too many lives have been lost on the A5, and far too many have been injured.
'We owe it to those people and their families to use every opportunity available to us to improve road safety in this area.'
The minister added: 'The A5 Western Transport Corridor is a vital infrastructure project; my team and I have been working around the clock and will continue to do so.
Advertisement
'We are determined to build the A5.'
The deadline to lodge an appeal against the court ruling was Friday.
When he delivered his judgment in June, Mr Justice McAlinden said he was aware it would bring 'significant, fresh anguish to the doors of those who have been injured and maimed and those who have lost loved ones as a result of road traffic accidents on the existing A5 road'.
He said: 'One of the primary justifications for the construction of this new road is that it will be much safer than the existing road and that, over time, many lives will be saved and many serious injuries prevented and many families will be spared the utter heartbreak of the sudden and shocking loss of a loved one.
Advertisement
'It is likely that delays in the progression of this scheme will coincide with the occurrence of further loss of life and serious injury on the existing road.'
The judge added: 'However, the decision to proceed with the scheme must be taken in accordance with the law and the principle of the rule of law cannot be subverted, even if the motivation for doing so is to achieve what is deemed to constitute a clear societal benefit.'
The judge said the 'shortcomings and shortcuts' in the proposals for the roads scheme could be remedied.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
8 hours ago
- Telegraph
‘Plumbers earn more than many graduates': do you think university is still worth it?
With A-level results released on Thursday, students in England, Northern Ireland and Wales will be considering their next step – whether it is pursuing higher education, entering the workforce or taking a gap year. On Monday, Roger Bootle argued in The Telegraph that going to university in Britain is a scam. He wrote: 'For many young people, their life prospects would be brighter if they didn't go to university.' His sentiment sparked a lively debate among readers. In response, we asked whether you believe going to university is worthwhile today. Of more than 15,000 respondents, 72pc said no – citing the devaluation of degrees due to over-subscription, the growing importance of learning a trade and the rising influence of AI. What is your view? Vote in our poll below, and read on for the best of the debate. Apprenticeships are a common alternative to attending university, and an option respondents strongly supported. Reader Christine McIntyre's son went to a grammar school, 'but decided at 14 that he was not going to university as he didn't want student debt and he wasn't interested in studying for a degree which likely would serve no useful purpose'. Instead, he began an apprenticeship to become a cabinet maker – and 12 years later, after acquiring an understanding of specific aspects of the building trade, 'he has progressed to working for a company in London and is involved in negotiating high-end contracts for commercial premises'. Highlighting the financial benefits of apprenticeships, Jim Stewart said: 'Young people who took trades from the late '90s onwards are financially outperforming their peers. Young people need mentors and apprenticeships, not brainwashing and meaningless qualifications.' Meanwhile, Cheshire CG offered a word of warning with the advancement of AI: 'In the new world of artificial intelligence, I'd think very carefully about whether the subject you want to study at university is going to provide the jobs you expect on graduation. Many jobs in professional careers will be reduced significantly as AI takes further hold.' Alongside AI's role in limiting available jobs, university qualifications no longer help job applicants stand out, according to Susan Jones. She said 'higher degrees [are] given out like candy'. Achieving a first in a challenging subject, she said, 'used to invoke awe and respect and not many achieved it'. 'Now everyone who goes seems to get a top-class degree, whether they can string a sentence together or not.' 'University is just a three-year holiday' Hu McG weighed in on student debt: 'For many of these 'graduates', they are not saddled with the debt, the taxpayers are. 'A large percentage of graduates never earn enough to have to pay back the funding they get. For them, university is just a three-year holiday at the taxpayer's expense.' Brenda Harrison said: 'You can go into accountancy after A-levels and work on the job while you qualify. 'There was not a shortage in nursing until the last Labour government decided nurses needed a degree. Again, on-the-job training with opportunities for advancement to specialise is offered along the way,' she explained. 'Plumbers' earning potential is significantly higher than a lot of post-graduate jobs, as well as many other skilled trade work. 'There are a number of degrees not worth the paper they are written on,' she asserted. Andrew Rowe, a former Russell Group lecturer, described how he 'got out 20 years ago when academia became an international 'pile 'em high' business more interested in activism than academic practice'. Despite his feelings, his daughter 'will be going to university as you can be disadvantaged at any point in your career if you didn't participate in the scam', he said. 'She will graduate with costs of £100,000 while her same-aged apprentice tradesman boyfriend will probably have a similar amount in the bank by then.' 'Intangible benefits' However, a minority of readers still championed university. They highlighted the independence it fosters and its role in helping young people shape their identities. Reader Sue Tudor reflected on her experience at Oxford University, where she studied history and theology. She acknowledged that 'the effect on my marketability' was 'zero or less' – however, she said, 'the intangible benefits [were] huge'. 'How many people get to sit in the Bodleian Library reading, in Latin, a medieval book that is not even available in English? It is a rarefied pleasure.' Alongside the potential for pleasure that studying can offer, another reader pointed out that 'living away from home is an important part of university'. 'For probably the first time, the student is responsible for managing virtually all of their life as an adult and prepares them for life away from their own town.' Having worked for the Ministry of Defence and a major US corporate defence contractor for several years after college, reader Billy Rubin soon found his promotion path barred by a lack of a degree. He went to university because he 'had no other choice'. Now working at a university himself, he explained how his graduates 'regularly enter the workplace above the point where I left it, despite having no work experience'. He concluded: 'Unless young people get a trade, university is no longer optional. Raw intelligence, experience and ability is no longer enough. It hasn't been enough for 20 years or more.'
Telegraph
10 hours ago
- Telegraph
Spiralling building costs are wrecking Britain's prospects
It will provide the water for tens of thousands of homes, allow supply to catch up with a huge rise in the population, and it might even allow resource-hungry data centres to finally get built in the South East of England where they are most needed. There are lots of reasons to welcome the planned new Abingdon Reservoir in Oxfordshire. There is just one catch. The cost has tripled from the initial estimates, and will now come in at £7.5bn. In reality, from nuclear power stations, to rail lines, to runways, this is happening time and time again. Everything costs far more to build in Britain than it does in comparable countries. And until we work out how to fix that, there is no hope of the economy ever recovering. When, or rather if, it is finally opened in 2040, the Abingdon reservoir will be the first major new piece of water infrastructure the UK has built in more than 30 years. Even though we have added 11m people to the total population since 1995, and total output has almost doubled, at least in nominal terms, we have been squeezing every last drop of water out of a largely Victorian water system. The locals may not like it, but we desperately need some new reservoirs, and Abingdon is as good a place as any to start. The problem is the cost. From initial estimates of around £2bn, Thames Water said this week the bill was likely to rise to £7.5bn, and perhaps even more. We can add it to the list of escalating infrastructure costs. Last month, Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, in a rare example of a sensible decision, gave the go-ahead for the Sizewell C nuclear power station. Again, however, the price was shocking. It will come in at £38bn, almost double the £20bn that was estimated when it was first discussed five years ago. If anyone believes that will be the final figure, if I have a pre-loved windmill I would like to sell them. The estimated cost of a third runaway at Heathrow has risen from £14bn to close on £50bn; the cost of the HS2 rail link has already gone up to close on £100bn, and that is after we have halved its length; the cost of the Lower Thames Crossing connecting London and Kent has risen to £10bn, and work hasn't even started yet. The list goes on and on. It makes no difference whether a project is large or small. In my corner of south-west London, Hammersmith Bridge has been closed for years, clogging up traffic for miles, but now that the cost of fixing it has doubled to £250m, the money is not available to start work. Our rivals are far better at keeping costs under control. France is not a cheap country to do business in, but nuclear plants cost less than £10bn each. According to Britain Remade, nuclear power plants cost an estimated £9.4bn per megawatt in the UK compared with £4.4bn in France and £2.2bn in South Korea. Reservoirs are hard to compare precisely because the size and the value of the land varies so much. But the huge new Bassin d'Austerlitz built to clean up the Seine for the Paris Olympics cost only €1.4bn (£1.2bn), far less than Abingdon. As for high-speed rail lines, everyone else builds them for a fraction of the cost in the UK. The trouble is, the soaring cost of building anything is turning into a catastrophe for the economy. There are three big problems. First, hardly any new infrastructure projects get started because the costs are so horrendous. Thames Water was already in dire financial trouble, and adding billions to the cost of new reservoirs is not going to help fix that. Meanwhile, the Government is already so deeply in debt and so strapped for cash, it can't afford to fund them either. Next, the huge bills and the endless escalation of prices deter investors. After all, why bother with infrastructure investments in the UK when you can build the same kit somewhere else for half the price, and earn far better profits? Finally, it means the prices that have to be charged soar out of control. Energy from Sizewell C will cost a lot more than it would have done if it had been built more efficiently. Presumably, anyone planning to travel on HS2, if it ever gets finished, will have to take out a second mortgage to pay for the cost of the ticket to Birmingham. Expensive infrastructure pushes up the price of everything else. The Labour Government was meant to be cutting the costs of building projects. But so far it has failed dismally. We can see that from the way estimates for projects such as Abingdon and Sizewell C keep going up when they should be coming down. We could fix the crisis if the political will were there. Like how? The UK needs to streamline its planning rules so that a single minister could give the green light for a project, without local consultation, without endless reports, and most of all, without any right to judicial review. Likewise, we need to scrap the environmental rules that prioritise wildlife over people and the economy. And we need to train more engineers and skilled construction workers so the labour is available once a project is approved and the finance has been secured. The cost of building anything in Britain is an issue that has been growing for years, but it is now reaching crisis proportions. In the 19th century, Britain was a world leader in creating infrastructure. Until we can build again, at reasonable cost, there is no hope of the economy recovering – and eventually the water, and the power, will just run out.
Sky News
a day ago
- Sky News
Battle to prevent The Bell Hotel in Epping from housing asylum seekers reaches High Court
A High Court judge is to decide if a hotel has breached planning rules by becoming a site for migrant accommodation. And the case that could have repercussions for councils across the country where asylum seekers are housed in hotels. Epping Forest District Council wants an interim injunction against The Bell Hotel in the town, which is owned by Somani Hotels, to prevent it being used as migrant accommodation, arguing the premises was not operating as intended as a hotel. Lawyers for the council called it "a very serious problem" and said it was creating "a feeding ground for unrest," stating that there is an "overwhelming case for an injunction". Opening the hearing at the High Court in London on Friday, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said it was a problem that was "getting out of hand" and "causing great anxiety" to local people. Protests have taken place outside the hotel after two men staying there were charged with sexual offences in separate incidents, including one involving a 14-year-old girl. Mr Coppel said there was "no agreement between [asylum seekers] and the hotel, they do not choose the duration of their stay... they do not choose the type of room". The hotel "is no more a hotel [to asylum seekers] than a borstal to a young offender", he said. Barristers for the hotel group told the court that an injunction would cause asylum seekers "hardship" and that the move would set "a dangerous precedent that protests justify planning injunctions". Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels Limited, said the company did not argue that residents' concerns "are not genuine", but that they did not justify an interim injunction to stop the use of the hotel. "Those particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning," he said. The council had "not shown any evidence" that it had "grappled with the hardship" that would be caused to asylum seekers, the Home Office and the company if a temporary injunction was granted, Mr Riley-Smith said. 50,000 migrants come to UK More than 50,000 migrants have crossed the Channel in small boats since Sir Keir Starmer became prime minister last July. The barrister told the court that what was happening at The Bell Hotel "is occurring in hotels across the country" and that the Home Office has a "statutory duty" to provide temporary emergency accommodation for asylum seekers. During Mr Riley-Smith's submissions, the judge, Mr Justice Eyre said: "I think I can take judicial notice that there has been no diminution of the need for accommodation for asylum seekers." Migrants were housed at the hotel from May 2020 to March 2021, and from October 2022 to April 2024 and the court heard the council never instigated any formal enforcement proceedings against this use. Council 'entirely wrong' In April 2025, they were once again being placed there and Mr Riley-Smith said that a planning application was not made "having taken advice from the Home Office". In written submissions, the barrister said it was "entirely wrong" for the council to "suggest the use has been hidden from them", saying it was "directly approached in February 2025 by the Home Office before the use began and alerted to the upcoming usage". He said an injunction would be a "draconian step," and warned granting one would cause harm. "The main harm would be the loss of accommodation for asylum seekers currently being housed there under the Home Office's statutory duties," he said. Mr Justice Eyre is due to deliver his decision on Tuesday.
