Barbone & Anor (On Behalf of Stop Stansted Expansion) v Secretary of State for Transport & Anor

National policy supporting a development does not itself authorise the development or override other material considerations. A planning decision-maker must evaluate the proposal’s environmental and economic effects and may give those considerations such weight as rational planning judgment permits. A challenge under section 288 is concerned with legality, not the planning merits. Where the decision-maker has considered the relevant environmental information, including effects that are ultimately given little or no weight, the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations are satisfied. A planning inquiry is not ordinarily the forum for reopening broad national policy questions, such as whether the Government has struck the correct balance between aviation expansion and climate change.

The claimants, representing Stop Stansted Expansion, applied under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the Secretaries of State’s decision allowing BAA’s appeal against refusal of permission for the G1 proposal at Stansted Airport. The permission increased annual passenger throughput from 25 million to 35 million and permitted up to 264,000 air traffic movements in any twelve-month period.

The challenge alleged misapplication of national policy, breach of legitimate expectation, failure to consider material economic and environmental matters, breach of regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999, and inadequate reasons. The central issues concerned the tourism trade deficit, aircraft noise and greenhouse-gas emissions.

1. The application was dismissed. The Inspector’s report and the Secretaries of State’s decision letter, read as a whole, showed that the relevant matters had been considered and evaluated.
2. A national policy statement is a material consideration, but it does not authorise a particular development. The ATWP established policy support for making full use of Stansted’s existing runway, while leaving the proposal subject to the planning system and all normal planning considerations. The policy did not settle the proposal’s economic benefits or environmental impacts.
3. The tourism deficit was considered in the context of the economic and employment benefits. The Inspector was entitled to conclude that it should not be included in the calculation of net benefits or given significant weight because the ATWP had already addressed the matter as part of national economic policy. Reopening that policy judgment was not appropriate at the planning appeal.
4. Noise was treated as a significant environmental consideration. Its harmful effects were assessed in detail and weighed against the proposal’s benefits. The Inspector’s observation that treating noise as determinative would challenge national policy did not mean that noise had been ignored or rendered legally immaterial.
5. The climate-change case principally challenged the appropriateness and effectiveness of national aviation policy. The Inspector and Secretaries of State were entitled to determine the appeal in accordance with current policy rather than decide that broader policy debate. The emissions evidence was nevertheless considered.
6. Regulation 3 of the 1999 EIA Regulations applied. The Secretaries of State had first taken the environmental information into consideration and stated that they had done so. The reasons given were proper, adequate and intelligible, and disclosed the conclusions on the principal controversial issues.

First-instance judicial review claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The application to quash the Secretaries of State’s decision was dismissed.