Appellant building helicopter landing pad — Secretary of State certifying existence of qualifying works within section 9 of Land Compensation Act 1973 — Appellant applying for judicial review — Whether appropriate to issue certificate — Application for judicial review dismissed — Appeal dismissed
In 1995 the appellant held a lease of Plymouth City Airport, which was used by the Ministry of Defence. The ministry required alterations to be made to the airport, to accommodate two naval helicopters. Planning permission was not required for the alterations, and a helicopter pad was duly built.
An issue arose as to whether such alterations fell within section 9 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, thereby rendering the appellant liable, under Part 1 of the Act, to pay compensation for any qualifying depreciation in the value of neighbouring land. Accordingly, in December 1988, the respondent Secretary of State considered whether to issue a certificate under section 15(2) of the Act, thereby conclusively establishing the existence and the operative date of any qualifying works, and leaving any remaining issues to the Lands Tribunal. A qualifying “runway or apron alteration”, within section 9(6) of the Act, was a “substantial addition to, or alteration of, a taxiway or apron, being an addition to or alteration whose purpose… is the provision of facilities for a greater number of aircraft.” The Secretary of State found that the helicopter pad met all of these criteria, and accordingly decided to issue the certificate.
The appellant applied for the respondent’s decision to be quashed, contending that the works had not been a substantial addition or alteration, as (principally for safety and environmental reasons) they had not provided facilities for a greater number of aircraft. The Secretary of State did not defend his decision, but an intervenor, (T), who was a former resident of the area, claimed that the certificate had been properly issued, since the construction of the pad in 1995 had been substantial, and had increased the capacity of the airport by two helicopters. He claimed that he and his neighbours had been adversely affected by the noise of helicopters, and that they were entitled to compensation.
The appellant’s application was dismissed by the High Court and the appellant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The Secretary of State had been entitled to conclude that the works were substantial, and that their purpose was the provision of a hard-standing area for helicopters. Given the concerns and objections of the Ministry of Defence to the use of the original runway for the helicopters, and the fact that the helicopters had been located at the airport in 1995, it stood to reason that the purpose of the works had been to provide facilities for a greater number of aircraft. The Secretary of State had therefore been entitled to conclude that the requirements of section 9 of the Act had been fulfilled and that he was entitled to issue a certificate to ensure that T and others would be compensated.
David Holgate QC (instructed by Foot Anstey Sargent, of Plymouth) appeared for the appellant; Robert Jay QC (instructed by Richard Buxton, of Cambridge) appeared for Mr Thomas, the intervening party; the respondent did not appear and was not represented.
Thomas Elliott, barrister