Planning policy — Proposed development of land near airport — White paper provisionally reserving land for airport expansion — Government failing to confirm plans — Whether secretary of state acting unreasonably and unfairly in refusing public inquiry — Claim dismissed
The claimant housebuilders formed part of a consortium that owned or controlled 120ha of land situated in north-east Crawley. It was local development plan policy to construct a mixed development of up to 2,700 houses and 1.3ha of employment land, together with other related development. The land in question was materially affected by the government’s Airports White Paper (AWP). This set out a proposal to reserve land for a second runway at Gatwick should plans for a third runway at Heathrow be rejected. If a wide-spaced runway were chosen, the project would have a major adverse effect upon the proposed development, since the land would then, in accordance with government policy guidance, come within a predicted area of excessive aircraft noise for residential development.
The claimants complained that they were being substantially prejudiced owing to their inability to take a decision concerning the future of the development following the secretary of state’s refusal to confirm that a public inquiry would be held within the next six to 12 months.
The claimants applied for judicial review. They contended that the defendant had acted unfairly and unreasonably in refusing to hold a public inquiry to assess the justification for, and implications of, reserving land for a second runway, and in refusing to institute an appropriate mechanism for a continual and proactive review of the AWP policy to reserve land for a second runway. The policy was the only significant obstacle to the early grant of planning permission for the development and it blighted the development potential of the land, which the claimants were otherwise entitled to realise.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The court could call upon no statutory framework to order an inquiry into a highway proposal. Moreover, there was no precedent allowing for a hearing or inquiry as part of the policy review process. The appropriate course would be for the claimants to present any further arguments regarding the AWP policy by way of written representations to the defendant: Binney v Secretary of State for the Environment [1984] JPL 871 distinguished.
As a matter of principle, it was difficult to see how fairness required the defendant, having lawfully adopted a policy, to conduct research by or on behalf of the claimants into whether a change in policy was justified by altered circumstances. There was no authority for such a proposition. If the claimants believed that further research was necessary, they had access to the technical expertise and could commission further research and present their findings for consideration by the defendant.
The complaint that there was no appropriate mechanism for continual and proactive review was not well founded, and there was nothing to suggest that an early resolution of the matter would not be best addressed through the statutory planning process.
John Steel QC, Andrew Tabachnik and Stephen Whale (instructed by DMH, of Brighton) appeared for the claimants; Richard Drabble QC, Tim Mould and Carine Patry (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the defendant.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
