London Borough of Wandsworth, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport

Government policy expressed at a high level does not require a particular outcome where it commits the Government only to addressing a problem purposefully. In reviewing complex environmental and economic policy, the court must respect the decision-maker’s evaluative judgment. Different reasonable conclusions may be drawn from technical data without establishing an error of law or Wednesbury unreasonableness. A noise-control system may address the effects of aircraft noise through a combination of measures, including classifications, quotas, movement limits and insulation schemes. A claimant cannot isolate one feature of the scheme and treat it as the whole statutory or policy response. A challenge to a concluded decision may also be refused where delay, prejudice to good administration and the claimant’s earlier conduct make the proceedings an abuse of process.

The claimants sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decisions on night-flying restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted for the period 2006 to 2012. They challenged the treatment of Boeing 747-400 aircraft with Rolls Royce engines, the retention of a 9 EPNdB adjustment for arriving aircraft, and the alleged failure to comply with a policy to bear down on night noise.

The challenged decisions followed two stages of consultation. Earlier challenges to the Stage 1 and Stage 2 consultation documents had been withdrawn or disposed of by agreement. The central issues were whether the Secretary of State had acted irrationally in retaining the relevant features of the Quota Count system and whether the final decisions unlawfully failed to implement the stated policy.

1. The application was dismissed. The claimants accepted that the Secretary of State had undertaken appropriate investigations and studies and that there was no procedural unfairness. The substantive challenges therefore had to be assessed with respect for the wide margin of appreciation applicable to complex environmental and economic policy decisions, including under Article 8.
2. The policy to bear down on night noise did not require an overall reduction in the impact of night noise. Properly understood, it required the Government to approach the problem in a meaningful and purposeful manner. The consultation process and the resulting environmental and noise-abatement objectives satisfied that requirement. Ground 3 therefore failed.
3. The challenge to the treatment of the Boeing 747-400 aircraft failed. The expert disagreement concerned the proper interpretation and methodology of ERCD Report 0205. The Secretary of State was entitled to adopt the report’s pooling methodology and the view of its lead author. A professional disagreement about technical data did not establish a material error of fact or Wednesbury unreasonableness.
4. The challenge to the 9 EPNdB adjustment also failed. The adjustment formed part of a wider scheme which addressed aircraft-noise effects through quotas, movement limits, restrictions on noisier aircraft and insulation measures. The claimants’ argument wrongly treated the adjustment as if it alone had to control both noise exposure and the number of people affected. The earlier decisions in Richmond No 1 and Richmond No 2 provided answers to substantially the same complaint.
5. In any event, both grounds were brought too late. The relevant decisions had been announced in the Stage 2 consultation document, had previously been challenged and had then been withdrawn. Reopening them would prejudice good administration and third parties who had relied on the consultation process. The renewed challenge was an abuse of process. The claimants were ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, to be taxed if not agreed.