A court ruling which paved the way for compensation claims by local residents at Plymouth totalling around £3.1m is under challenge in London today.
The Court of Appeal is being asked to overturn a High Court decision which gave the green light to a claim by local homeowners for diminution of the value of their property arising from changes at the Plymouth City Airport.
The appeal centres on the decision by the DETR in December 1998 to issue a certificate under the provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973 in respect of claims by the local residents, certifying that the airport changes constituted “apron alterations”. The certification laid the groundwork for the compensation claims.
Gilbert Thomas, one of the claimants, says that the value of his house at 6 Blue Haze Close, Glenholt, Plymouth, which he had owned since 1988, dropped as a result of the development at the airport in 1995. He contends that he ended up selling the property in 1997 for less than it should have been worth.
He claimed that the house was “blighted by aircraft noise and movement”, following relocation of two naval helicopters from Portland, Dorset, to the airport in 1995, and relocation elsewhere in the airport of six aircraft owned by Plymouth School of Flying. In order to support the helicopters, a previously grassed area was resurfaced and new helicopter pads installed.
Challenging High Court backing of the certificate, David Holgate QC, counsel for the airport, argued before Potter, Sedley and Jonathan Parker LJJ that there was evidence to show that the helicopters could operate safely either from the runway or from the new helicopter pads.
He claimed that although the pads had been the preferred location for operation of the helicopters, the expansion of the apron had not been essential as the runway could, and had, been used by them. He argued that in these circumstances there was no basis for the Secretary of State to give the certification necessary for the compensation claims.
He claimed that the Environment Secretary had failed, among other things, to take into account the fact that helicopters had continuously used one of the airport’s runways since January 1997 without any safety or environmental constraints and without any reduction in the capacity of the airport.
He also argued that a finding by the judge that the question of use of runways was irrelevant in deciding the matter was wrong.
The hearing continues.
R v Secretary of State for Transport, Environment and the Regions, ex parte Plymouth City Airport Court of Appeal (Potter, Sedley and Jonathan Parker LJJ) 18 January 2001.
David Holgate QC (instructed by Foot Anstey Sargent, of Plymouth) appears for the appellant; Robert Jay QC (instructed by Richard Buxton, of Cambridge) appears for Mr Thomas.
PLS News 18/1/01
