Lasham Gliding Society Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Civil Aviation Authority

A specialist regulator entrusted with technical airspace decisions is entitled to a substantial margin of appreciation when assessing safety, capacity and future traffic patterns. Judicial review examines rationality, not the merits of competing tenable expert opinions.

The duty to secure the most efficient use of airspace permits consideration of increased capacity as well as predicted movements. It also permits assessment of the contribution made to UK airspace as a whole, rather than only the particular volume proposed for classification.

The claimant, a gliding society operating near Farnborough Airport, sought judicial review of the Civil Aviation Authority’s decision to approve a modified proposal for new controlled airspace and performance-based navigation procedures. The claimant alleged that the decision failed to maintain a high standard of safety, misinterpreted the duty to secure the most efficient use of airspace, and failed to take account of the effects on its operations under section 70 of the Transport Act 2000.

The central issues were whether the CAA’s predictive assessment of possible traffic bottlenecks was irrational; whether section 70(2)(a) confined efficiency to actual aircraft movements in the newly controlled airspace; and whether the CAA had adequately considered the claimant’s interests.

1. Claim dismissed. The CAA had not misinterpreted or failed to comply with section 70 of the Transport Act 2000, and its conclusions were not irrational.
2. The safety assessment involved technical and predictive regulatory judgment. The CAA was entitled to an enhanced margin of appreciation. It could determine the appropriate methods of assessment, the sufficiency of the evidence, and how the evidence should be evaluated against its own specialist knowledge and experience. The court was not to resolve competing tenable opinions or substitute its own assessment.
3. The CAA had asked the correct safety question, namely whether the proposed controls might create bottlenecks in surrounding Class G airspace. It identified mitigation through air traffic control resources, appropriate airmanship and fair and reasonable access arrangements. Its reliance on the sponsor’s analysis, consultation material and expert experience did not make the decision irrational.
4. Section 70(2)(a) imposed a broad duty to act in the manner the CAA thought best calculated to secure efficient use of airspace. The phrase was capable of including increased capacity to accommodate aircraft movements, as well as actual numbers of movements. It also permitted the CAA to consider the contribution of a proposal to UK airspace as a whole, not merely the airspace to be controlled.
5. The CAA therefore acted lawfully in considering the creation of a known environment, increased capacity and consequential benefits for wider London airspace. Having lawfully rejected the alleged safety consequences, it was not required to accept those safety fears when assessing the claimant’s interests under section 70(2)(b) and (c). The decision-making material showed that it understood the characteristics and potential operational and financial effects of gliding.
6. Decision documents were to be read fairly and in good faith. Reasons stated in general terms could include reasons fairly falling within them, with appropriate credit given to the decision maker’s professional background knowledge.