A group of Surrey villagers have succeeded in overturning a decision of Waverley council that paved the way for the redevelopment of Dunsfold Airfield.
Deputy Judge Sir Richard Tucker has ruled in the High Court that the councils decision to remove a long-standing condition, requiring British Aerospace plc to return the land to agricultural use when it ceased to use the site, was an “abuse of power”.
British Aerospace uses the 528-acre aerodrome at Stovolds Hill and its 500,000 sq ft of buildings for the production, repair and flight testing of military aircraft. That operation makes it the largest private employer in the area.
A condition attached to the planning permission required British Aerospace to return the land to agricultural use when it had finished with it. However, in April the council removed that condition, with the effect that the land would not return to agricultural use even if British Aerospace ultimately sold the facility.
Residents of the adjacent villages of Dunsfold and Alfold subsequently formed an action group to challenge the councils decision. They claimed that for over 50 years, since the Canadian Air Force first turned the farmland into an emergency airfield in the Second World War, the operators, planning authorities and local residents had acted on the basis that the buildings would be removed and the site returned to agriculture once its use for aviation ended.
The group argued that this had been a condition of a series of temporary planning permissions granted for the site, and that it was a requirement of the permission granted to British Aerospace in 1998, which was to run until 2020. The removal of the condition, they said, presented British Aerospace with a “windfall” of an unencumbered piece of land to market at an enhanced rate.
Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC, counsel for the villagers, argued in court that the council had proceeded upon the assumption that another operator for the aerodrome would be found to continue to provide employment, but had not investigated the matter or produced any evidence to support their assumption.
He said the council had taken into account the marketability of the site with the condition attached, which was an immaterial consideration, and had failed to give adequate reasons for their decision. He also argued that his clients had a legitimate expectation that the land would return to farming use when British Aerospace stopped operating.
Bearing in mind the history of the site, he said, the councils decision to remove the return-to-agriculture condition was so unreasonable as to amount to an “irrational decision”.
Allowing the challenge, the judge said: “In my judgment, having regard to the history of this site, the circumstances in which it was taken over, its position in the open countryside, and the number of years the condition has been in place, it is now unreasonable for it to be removed, and so unreasonable as to amount to an irrational decision.”
“It is so unfair to frustrate the expectations of the claimants that it amounts to an abuse of power.”
The council were also ordered to pay the legal costs of the villagers, which are to be assessed later and are expected to run to many thousands of pounds.
The judge has granted leave to the council and British Aerospace to appeal against his ruling, and an appeal hearing is expected early in 2001.
PLS News 8/12/00
