Applicant owner, operator and responsible authority for airport carrying out works at airport – Respondent issuing certificate stating that works were apron alterations – Claims for compensation made – Whether respondent erred in issuing certificate – Application dismissed
The applicant was the operator and leasehold owner of Plymouth City Airport. For the purposes of Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, it was also the “responsible authority” for the airport and liable to pay any successful claims for compensation under the Act.
In 1995 two Royal Navy helicopters were relocated to the airport. In order to support them, an area was regraded and covered with a temporary metalled surface. The Secretary of State for Transport issued a certificate under section 15(2) of the Act certifying that the works constituted “apron alterations” for the purposes of section 9 of the Act. The certificate enabled compensation claims to be brought against the applicant for any damage caused by the alterations. T sought compensation on the basis that his house, which was close to the airport, was blighted by aircraft noise and movement and that he had been forced to sell it at an undervalue.
The applicant successfully challenged the certificate, but a fresh certificate was issued on 15 December 1998 by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, as the successor to the Secretary of State for Transport. The applicant sought judicial review of that certificate also, and a court bundle was served on T as a person directly affected. He opposed the application as an interested party.
The applicant submitted that: (i) the Secretary of State had erred in failing to take into account a material consideration, namely that helicopters had used runway 06/24 since January 1997; (ii) the Secretary of State only considered in absolute terms, rather than in relative terms, whether the works were a “substantial addition to, or alteration of, a runway or apron”: and (iii) there had been a breach of natural justice as the Secretary of State had considered a letter that he failed to disclose to the applicant. The applicant had therefore been denied an opportunity to make representations on matters raised in that letter.
Held: The application was dismissed.
It was irrelevant that helicopters had used the runway since January 1997. The issue was to be judged in relation to the applicant’s intention or purposes at the time the works were carried out in 1995. The Secretary of State was well aware that the issue before him was whether the works amounted to a “substantial addition or alteration” and properly addressed it. It was regrettable that the letter was not made available to the applicant; however, no unfairness was suffered and the Secretary of State’s decision would have been the same in any event.
The Rt Hon Lord Kingsland QC (instructed by Foot & Bowden, of Plymouth) appeared for the applicant; Robert Jay QC (instructed by Richard Buxton, of Cambridge) appeared for the interested party. The respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister