Application for planning permission to develop airport – Permission refused by inspector and Secretaries of State for Transport and Environment – Application for decision to be quashed – Whether commercial case for airport adequately considered – Whether scale of proposal misunderstood – Whether rational criteria applied to assess noise impact of proposal – Application to quash decision refused
The applicants applied for planning permission for the development, described as “use for commercial air traffic with associated minor building operations”, of a site consisting of 211ha at Filton, Bristol. The proposed airport was to have a limited use for scheduled business services with a ceiling of 23,000 air traffic movements per year. A public inquiry was conducted between October 1994 and January 1995 by an inspector who recommended the refusal of the application. The respondents, the Secretaries of State for Transport and Environment, refused to grant planning permission in the light of the inspector’s findings. The applicants applied for the respondents’ decision to be quashed, complaining about the reference in the respondents’ conclusion to the lack of evidence as to future plans for the continued use of any development. It was contended that it had been illogical to consider the effect on jobs by the proposals compared to the effect on jobs if the airfield closed, since there was no evidence that it was likely to close, and that the respondents had not adequately considered the commercial case for the development. It was submitted that the application should have been decided without regard to the possibilities of expansion if permission was granted, and that it was not clear from the inspector’s and respondents’ decisions how they had concluded from the evidence that the noise effects of the proposal would have been unacceptable.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. No guarantees in relation to the applicants’ commitment to Filton had been given and therefore the conclusions which had been reached about the effect of the lack of any guarantee had been acceptable. The observations on the numbers of jobs had not been on an assumption that the airfield would close, but had simply been a comment on the relative importance of the airfield as generator of employment.
2. There had been weaknesses in the respondents’ consideration of the evidence relating to the lack of viability of the airport, of the study commissioned by the Department of Transport as to the potential for new runway capacity in the south-east, and of the extensive permitted development rights. However it had not undermined the reasoning of the decision as a whole.
3. The respondents had been entitled to take possible expansion into account since it would be likely to happen if permission was granted and, in any event, it had been clear that the respondents’ conclusions had not depended on that possibility.
4. Although it was not clear how the conclusions of the respondents had related to the noise evidence, they had not been free-standing objections but were matters which reinforced the general planning objection. Therefore it could not be concluded that the basis of the overall decision had been materially uncertain.
John Taylor QC and Rupert Warren (instructed by SJ Berwin & Co) appeared for the applicants; Stephen Richards and David Elvin (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first and second respondents, Secretary of State for the Environment and Secretary of State for Transport; the third respondents, South Gloucestershire Council, did not appear and were not represented.
