Council granting planning permission for extension of runway – Works beginning at airport – Applicant seeking permission to apply for judicial review – Whether council should have required environmental statement before granting consent – Whether relief should be granted despite long delay – Application refused
In 1994 the first respondent council granted planning permission to the second respondent, East Midlands Airport (EMA), for a 610m runway extension. In 1996 EMA applied for consent for a further extension of the runway by 130m. The council required an environmental statement. EMA submitted a statement that dealt with the cumulative effects of both extensions. In November 1997, pursuant to the 1994 consent, EMA obtained all the necessary approvals for work to commence. Work began in February 1999, and the eastern and western runway extensions were completed towards the end of that year.
The applicant, who had earlier been refused permission to move for judicial review of the 1994 consent, made a renewed application proposing a new ground of challenge. It was contended that the council had breached their obligation under the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 by granting the 1994 consent without first considering the environmental information and requiring an environmental statement. The applicant submitted that the only conclusion the council could reasonably have reached was that the 610m extension was likely to have significant environmental effects, especially in view of the fact that they had so concluded in relation to the 130m extension.
It was further submitted that the court should exercise its discretion and grant relief despite the long delay because the public interest required it and European law demanded it. Relying upon Aanamaersbedrijf PK Kraaijeveld v Gedeputeerde Staten Van Zuid-Holland C-72/95 [1997] Env LR 265 and World Wildlife Fund v Autonome Provinz Bozen [2000] 1 CMLR 149, the applicant submitted that the council were under a continuing duty in European law to ensure that development was subject to an environmental assessment, and that, until that duty had been discharged, they could not rely upon delay to resist the challenge.
Held: The application was dismissed.
Even assuming there was an arguable case that the council should have obtained an environmental statement before granting the 1994 consent, quashing the consent would cause hardship and prejudice and would involve substantial detriment to good administration: R v Newbury District Council, ex parte Chieveley Parish Council [1999] PLCR 51 applied. Around £67m had been spent on constructing the cargo-handling facility and associated infrastructure at the airport. If EMA were required to remove the works, it would involve a further expenditure of £12m and significant disruption to the airport for a year. In the light of the inexcusably long delay and potential prejudice, the court was entitled to apply section 31(6) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, even in the case of an alleged breach of Community law, and dismiss the application: R v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte CPRE unreported 26 October 1999 applied.
Lord Kingsland QC and Matthew Hutchings (instructed by Richard Buxton, of Cambridge) appeared for the applicant; Peter Village and Martin Chamberlain (instructed by the solicitor to North West Leicestershire District Council) appeared for the first respondents; John Howell QC (instructed by Pinsent Curtis, of Birmingham) appeared for the second respondent.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
