Application for development abutting airport — Local plans stressing importance of utilising communications network in airport vicinity — Long-term future of airport not to be prejudiced — Planning permission granted for business park despite objections — Whether proposed development according with local plans — High Court refusing airport’s appeal — Appeal against decision dismissed
On appeal the Secretary of State gave planning permission for a business park on some 54 acres of land at Gimbro Farm, Castle Donnington, Leicestershire. The land adjoined the south side of East Midlands International Airport (site A). The developers, Hallam Land Management Ltd (“Hallam”), were the third respondents to the appeal. The inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State, set out the relevant policies of the Leicestershire structure plan and the Northern Parishes local plan. At the same inquiry, Hallam appealed in respect of another site for which development permission was refused (site B).
The general policy of the structure plan was to utilise the excellent communications network to further economic growth. The plan also required that in the selection of sites the long-term future development of East Midlands Airport should not be prejudiced (criterion f). An application to the High Court to quash the inspector’s decision was refused. The applicants appealed arguing, inter alia, that criterion f was not satisfied by the grant of the planning permission. Hallam argued, inter alia, that the question whether condition f was satisfied was a matter of judgment; an absolute determination could not be given in relation to a need which might only arise by the year 2005.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The inspector accepted the present advantages of the airport’s current layout. He accepted further that if it were continued to be followed the only likely location for a new terminal would include site A. However, he concluded that some redevelopment of part of that site might be preferable in the light of a study then being undertaken: para 10.22 of the decision letter.
2. In para 10.23, he proceeded to deal with site B and concluded that if it were to be developed, there would be a “material potential loss of operational flexibility in the future development of the airport”.
3. Reading the decision letter as a whole, it was clear that he was addressing criterion f and did fulfil the undertaking required of him to consider the airport development in detail.
4. In finding that site B would result in a material loss in operational flexibility in para 10.23, it was a clear and sensible application of criterion f.
5. It was an inescapable conclusion, therefore, that the inspector must have applied the same criterion in the immediately preceding paragraph where he dealt with future uncertainties and where he held that the possible development of a terminal was remote in relation to site A, for which he recommended that permission be granted.
6. With regard to the further question of whether subsequent alterations to the local plan had been taken into account, when the Secretary of State said in terms that he had done so, the court could not say that he had not unless there was internal evidence from his letter to show otherwise.
Gregory Stone QC (instructed by Pinsent & Co, of Birmingham) appeared for EMIA; Alun Alesbury (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; Richard Drabble (instructed by Argles & Court, of Maidstone) appeared for the third respondent, Hallam; the local planning authority did not appear and were not represented.
