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

In the present case the Claimants, representatives of “Stop Stansted Expansion” (“SSE”) applied under s.288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to quash the decision made by the the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (“the Secretaries of State”) granting planning permission for BAA’s proposals to increase the capacity of Stansted Airport by varying existing planning conditions that regulated the annual number of air traffic movements (“ATMs”) and the annual throughput of air passengers that the airport could lawfully accommodate under its existing planning permission. The planning permission granted by the Secretaries of State has had the effect of lifting the permitted annual throughput of passengers at Stansted Airport from 25 million passengers per annum (“mppa”) to 35 mppa and of increasing the ATMs to a figure not exceeding 264,000 overall in any period of 12 calendar months. One of SSE’s grounds related to the way in which climate change had been dealt with in the decision. It was common ground at the inquiry that no climate change effect directly linked to the proposed additional use of the existing runway could be demonstrated. SSE’s case was principally to question the efficacy of Government policy in seeking to reconcile the expansion of aviation with its stated commitment to meet the challenge of global warning. SSE argued that the Government’s proposals to manage the impact of aviation through concerted international action under an emissions trading scheme were unrealistic and uncertain as to the timing of their delivery. SSE therefore contended that, in determining BAA’s planning appeal, the Secretaries of State had to choose between the competing policies of (i) expanding air traffic and (ii) addressing climate change. The Inspector said that the Government had faced up to the need to reconcile these policy objectives, both in the Air Transport White Paper and in the Air Transport Progress Report. The Inspector concluded that questions of the appropriateness and effectiveness of Government policies on aviation and climate change and their compatibility are matters for debate in Parliament and elsewhere rather than through this appeal. The Secretaries of State agreed with this approach. The Judge concluded that the approach adopted by the Inspector and the Secretaries of State on this aspect of the matter was legitimate and in accordance with established legal principles. On analysis, SSE’s argument on climate change was in the context of the inquiry an attack on national transport planning policy which seeks to offset that aspect of the environmental impact of the development of air transport against commensurate changes elsewhere in the economy. The judge refused permission to appeal. The group was ordered to pay the government's legal costs up to an agreed limit of £20,000.