TCI Commentary:
In November 2018 Uttlesford Council’s planning committee backed proposals for nine new stands, which will allow Stansted Airport to handle 43 million people a year – up from the current cap of 35 million. This decision had to be rubber stamped by the Government. On 20 March 2019 the Council received correspondence from James Brokenshire MP, Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government confirming that the Council is the right body to approve the airport’s planning decision and he has decided not to call it in.
The Secretary of State can call in, i.e. has the power to take over, planning applications rather than letting the local authority decide, but will normally only do this if the application conflicts with national policy in important ways or is nationally significant.
In making his decision James Brokenshire, MP, will have taken published government policy into account. In this case the campaigners are referring to the Written Ministerial Statement 26 October 2012, which among the criteria extends to “could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality”. However, this is at the Secretary of State’s discretion, each case being considered on its own merits.
If SSE is granted leave for Judicial Review this case will be watched with interest by many in the aviation sector as airports the length and breadth of the country are gearing up to meet the policy objectives set in the UK’s Future Aviation Sector. This could potentially set the tone for the future approach to not only planning applications to local authorities but also to the demands of the Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP 1616 which sets out the community engagement requirements for changing airspace design and reacts to both changing technology and growth requirements.
The Judicial Review, if granted, will not look at the Secretary of State’s decision, but will consider the lawfulness of the process followed.
Article:
Campaigners have confirmed they are seeking a legal challenge against the housing secretary’s decision not to call in plans for the expansion of Stansted airport in Essex, arguing that the minister was wrong to conclude that the application did not involve issues of more than local importance.
In November last year, Uttlesford District Council approved plans for the expansion of the airport, in line with a recommendation from planners who concluded that there would be “negligible” negative impacts arising from the proposals.
The application was then referred to the secretary of state, James Brokenshire, who declined to call it in.
Campaign group Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) said in a statement this week that the minister’s reason for not intervening was that “the application does not involve issues of more than local importance”. SSE said it “considers this conclusion to be completely at odds with the facts”.
SSE said that the “noise, air pollution, community health and road traffic impacts of Stansted are felt far beyond the borders of Uttlesford, and the 3.7 million equivalent tonnes of carbon dioxide attributable to Stansted Airport this year will have significant adverse impacts not only at a national level but also internationally”.
The statement added that SSE believes Brokenshire “is both factually wrong and wrong in law to say that the further expansion of Stansted to become almost as big as today’s Gatwick does not involve issues of more than local importance, and so does not justify his intervention”.
SSE said its legal proceedings will take the form of an application to the High Court for a judicial review of Brokenshire’s decision not to call in the planning application.
It said there is already has an outstanding judicial review application against the transport secretary, Chris Grayling, over his decision in June 2018 to allow the airport planning application to be determined by the council.
The group said it would now seek to widen its challenge to include both secretaries of state for “taking the same line … in refusing to consider the airport planning application at national level”.
The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that, as the case is subject to legal proceedings, it would not comment.
In January, Uttlesford Council voted to launch an independent review of its handling of major planning applications in the wake of the Stansted Airport expansion approval.
Article originally appeared on Planning Resource (This is a paid subscription service)
The Institute cannot confirm the accuracy of this story or confirm that it presents a balanced view. If you feel this is inaccurate, we would welcome your perspective and evidence that this is the case.
