Heathrow Hub Ltd v The Secretary of State for Transport
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Lindblom,Lord Justice Singh,Lord Justice Haddon-Cave |
| Judgment Date | 27 February 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWCA Civ 213 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: C1/2019/1154 |
| Date | 27 February 2020 |
The Queen (on the application of
and
and
[2020] EWCA Civ 213
Lord Justice Lindblom
Lord Justice Singh
and
Lord Justice Haddon-Cave
Case No: C1/2019/1154
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
LORD JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM, MR JUSTICE HOLGATE AND MR JUSTICE
MARCUS SMITH
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Martin Kingston QC, Robert O'Donoghue QC, Satnam Choongh and Emma Mockford (instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP) for the Appellants
Robert Palmer QC, Alan Bates, Richard Moules and Andrew Byass (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Respondent
Michael Humphries QC, Gerry Facenna QC and Richard Turney (instructed by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP) for the First Interested Party
Charles Banner QC (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP) for the Second Interested Party
Sarah Hannett (instructed by the Office of the Speaker's Counsel in the House of Commons) for the Intervener
Hearing dates: 24–25 October 2019
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down
Lord Justice Lindblom, Lord Justice Singh and
INTRODUCTION
This is the judgment of the court.
This is an appeal against an order handed down by the Divisional Court (Hickinbottom LJ, Holgate and Marcus Smith JJ) on 1 May 2019 in R (on the application of Heathrow Hub Limited and Another) v Secretary of State for Transport [2019] EWHC 1069 (Admin) (“the HUB Judgment”) whereby the Divisional Court dismissed a claim for judicial review brought by the Appellants in respect of the Respondent's decision on 26 June 2018 to designate the “Airports National Policy Statement: new runway capacity and infrastructure at airports in the South East of England” (“ANPS”) as a national policy statement under section 5(1) of the Planning Act 2008.
On the same day, the Divisional Court (Hickinbottom LJ and Holgate J) also handed down a linked order in ( R (on the application of Neil Spurrier and Others) v Secretary of State for Transport [2019] EWHC 1070 (Admin)), whereby the Divisional Court dismissed challenges by various parties to the designation of the ANPS on environmental grounds. The order of this court on the appeal and applications for permission to appeal in those proceedings is also handed down today.
The parties to this appeal against the HUB Judgment are as follows:
(1) The Appellants (collectively known as “HUB”), are the promoters of a proposal to extend the existing northern runway at Heathrow Airport so as to operate as two runways, a proposal known as the Extended Northern Runway (“ENR”) scheme.
(2) The Respondent (“the Secretary of State”) is the Minister responsible for United Kingdom (“UK”) transport matters including aviation.
(3) The First Interested Party, Heathrow Airport Limited (“HAL”) is the owner and operator of Heathrow Airport and the promoter of a proposal to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport, a proposal known as the Heathrow Northwest Runway (“NWR”) scheme.
(4) The Second Interested Party, Arora Holdings Limited (“Arora”) and its associated subsidiary companies own land within the indicative boundary of the NWR scheme, including several hotels.
(5) The Intervener is the Speaker of the House of Commons.
The decision of the Secretary of State to designate the ANPS was the culmination of a six-year process, which began in September 2012 with the establishment of the Airports Commission (“the Commission”), to examine two questions: (a) whether there was a need for additional airport capacity in the South East of England; and (b) if so, how that capacity requirement should be met.
The ANPS concluded that (a) there was a need for further airport capacity and (b) this need should be met by the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport, namely the NWR scheme promoted by HAL.
The ANPS chose the NWR proposal over two other rival proposals: first, the ENR scheme proposed by HUB; second, a proposal promoted by the owner and operator of Gatwick Airport, Gatwick Airport Limited (“GAL”), for the construction of a second runway at Gatwick Airport, known as the Gatwick scheme.
By its claim for judicial review in these proceedings (CO/3071/2018) HUB sought to challenge the Secretary of State's decision to prefer the NWR scheme over the ENR scheme and to designate the ANPS accordingly. Unlike the other claimants in the linked Planning proceedings (CO/2760/2018, CO/3089/2018, CO/3147/2018 and CO/3149/2018), who oppose any expansion of Heathrow at all, HUB supports the expansion of Heathrow Airport but complains that legal errors were made in the process of selecting and preferring the NWR scheme over its ENR scheme.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Divisional Court set out a full and clear account of the relevant facts (in paragraphs 21 to 86 of its judgment, under the heading “The Factual Background”). We gratefully adopt that account. For the hearing before us, the parties provided a detailed agreed narrative. We set out below the most salient events in that history.
On 7 September 2012, the Government established the Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, as an independent body of experts to examine the scale and timing of any requirement for additional capacity to maintain the UK's position as Europe's most important aviation hub. The Airports Commission's brief was to evaluate and report on how any need for additional capacity should be met in the short, medium and long term. The terms of reference of the Airports Commission required it to look, inter alia, at the environmental impact of meeting any capacity needs and required that the “Commission should base the recommendations in its final report on a detailed consideration of the case for each of the credible options. This should include the development or examination of detailed business cases and environmental assessments for each option, as well as consideration of their operational, commercial and technical viability”. The terms of reference further expressly required the Airports Commission to provide material by way of its Final Report which would support the Government in preparing a national policy statement (“NPS”).
Following its establishment, the Airports Commission issued an invitation for interested parties to submit proposals for long-term aviation capacity options. In connection with this invitation, in February 2013, the Airports Commission issued a guidance document, “Submitting evidence and proposals to the Airports Commission”, which explained in general terms the approach it proposed to take with its role and how those who wished to submit proposals might best engage with the Airport Commission. In that guidance document, Sir Howard Davies described in his Foreword how the Airports Commission, as “a body without any vested interests or preconceived views”, intended to provide a “fresh and independent view, at arm's length from politics”. The guidance document also explained how the Airports Commission intended to make recommendations for Government by the summer of 2015, which it hoped “could form the basis of a National Policy Statement”. The Airports Commission explained: “In reaching our interim conclusions, part of the role of the Commission will be to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to all of the plausible options”.
HUB put forward one of 52 proposals submitted to the Airports Commission in response to that invitation. These proposals were then published by the Airports Commission, together with six proposals of its own, with a further invitation for stakeholders to submit views and additional evidence.
HUB made its initial submission in respect of its proposed ENR scheme to the Airports Commission on 28 February 2013, followed by further submissions and engagement throughout the remainder of 2013.
On 17 December 2013, having considered the responses following the publication of the 58 proposals, the Airports Commission published an interim report (the “Airports Commission's Interim Report”), which assessed the evidence on the nature, scale and timing of steps needed to maintain the UK's status as an international hub for aviation. It also made recommendations for the better use of existing runway capacity consistent with long term options. The Airports Commission's Interim Report selected three options for further consideration in its final report: the NWR scheme, the ENR scheme and the Gatwick scheme. The Airports Commission explained that it considered each of the shortlisted options had “a credible prospect of being deliverable within the required timescales” although it noted that “there are still important issues to examine for each of the proposals, together with significant risks”.
In January 2014, the Airports Commission consulted on a draft Appraisal Framework, and in February 2014, it adopted an Appraisal Framework. The “appraisal modules” adopted included noise, cost and commercial viability, operational efficiency, operational risk and delivery. The Airports Commission established an Expert Advisory Panel comprising 21 members to aid it in its assessment of the evidence.
On 1 July 2015, the Airports Commission published its Final Report which recommended, inter alia, that the NWR scheme was the most appropriate way to meet the identified need for additional runway capacity in the south east of England, combined with a significant package of measures to address environmental and community impacts.
The Airports Commission concluded that the ENR scheme performed better in two areas: (1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R (on the application of MP) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
-
R (on the application of DMA, AHK, BK and ELN) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...Rural Affairs [2007] EWHC 2995 (Admin), cited with approval in R (Heathrow Hub Ltd and Another) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 213 at [209]), namely: “The first condition is … that “a large number of similar cases exist or are anticipated” or at least other similar cas......
-
SC and 3 Children v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
...explanation of the position: see R (Heathrow Hub Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport (Speaker of the House of Commons intervening) [2020] EWCA Civ 213; [2020] 4 CMLR 17, para 158, and R (Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens) v Secretary of State for the Home Dep......
-
The King (on the Application of HL) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
...slow to intervene, for obvious constitutional reasons.’ 45. In R (Heathrow Hub Ltd and another) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 213, the Court of Appeal held that, whilst a promise of consultation need not be express, there must be a practice ‘which is impliedly tantamou......
-
A change in the wind? Heathrow expansion policy ruled unlawful in victory for climate campaigners
...clear statutory requirements that Parliament has imposed." (R (Friends of the Earth) -v- Secretary of State for Transport and others, [2020] EWCA Civ 213, paragraph. [View source.] Dr. Marion Palmer...
-
The ‘Heathrow’ Case: Polycentricity, Legislation, and the Standard of Review
...lawissues ar ising fromtheANPS.See Heathrow Hub Ltd & Anor,R (On the Application Of) vThe Secretary of State for Transport[2020] EWCA Civ 213 which was an appeal of Heathrow Hub Ltd & Anor, R (On the ApplicationOf) vThe Secretary of State for Transport [2019] EWHC 1069 (Admin).Neither of th......