Transport & energy infrastructure planning news, September 2018

Since the Government designated its Airports National Policy Statement (NPS) in June this year, a total of six applications have been submitted to the High Court that claim its designation was unlawful. The latest challenge comes from environmental campaign group Friends of the Earth.

The Airports NPS sets out the Government’s framework for expansion at Heathrow Airport, which would include a new north-east runway of at least 3,500 metres in length, capable of delivering additional capacity of at least 260,000 flights a year. It also covers any additional works supporting this development, and how the scheme’s impact on the environment will be mitigated. Although it is not a permission for development of itself, the NPS sets the framework for the consideration of future decisions.

Whilst the NPS has already undergone public consultation and passed Parliamentary scrutiny, following its designation there was a six-week window in which interested parties could challenge via a judicial review.

Soon after the NPS had been designated, an application for judicial review was made by a cross-party alliance of four London boroughs (Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth, and Hammersmith and Fulham), plus the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, and the Mayor of London, together with Greenpeace.

Also having lodged separate applications for judicial review are the environmental charity Plan B; as well as the Heathrow Hub, who had put in an alternative bid for the expansion, which would have seen the north runway extended.

The remaining two challenges have been made by individuals, one of whom is a member of a local campaign group opposing the proposed expansion at the airport.

The grounds for the challenges cover a range of issues, including: the development’s impact on air quality; climate change; the Habitats Directive; concerns over the adequacy of the consultation process; as well as the economic benefits of the project.

A decision on whether the NPS will be subject to a full High Court hearing relating to these issues will be made this autumn.

On 10 August, campaign group Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) applied for judicial review to the High Court, challenging a recent decision by the Department for Transport that will allow Uttlesford District Council to determine planning applications relating to Stansted Airport.

The protest group is of the view that the expansion plans of the airport’s owner, Manchester Airport Group (MAG), should be categorised as a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP), and as such should be decided by the Planning Inspectorate via the development consent order (DCO) route.

The Group has argued that the expansion would increase the 2017 number of passengers by 66% and there would be a 44% increase in flights. 25.9 million flew from the airport last year, with the airport already permitted to increase this to 35 million.

For the application to be considered under the NSIP regime, it would need to increase the airport’s annual number of passengers by 10 million or more. However, the Airport Group’s latest plans to extend from the existing 35 million to 43 million passengers per annum fall short of this threshold.    

• for dams and reservoirs, an increase from infrastructure capable of holding back 10 million cubic metres to 30 million cubic metres (or 30,000 megalitres);
• for water transfer schemes, a reduction fr0m 100 million cubic metres to 30 million cubic metres per year;
• water schemes with an output figure of 80 megalitres per day will be included in the future definition; and
• desalination plants with an output of 80 megalitres per day or more will be considered under the NSIP regime.