R (London Borough of Hillingdon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Carnwath,LORD JUSTICE CARNWATH |
| Judgment Date | 20 April 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWHC 626 (Admin),[2010] EWHC 1058 (Admin),[2010] EWHC 1001 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/3334/2009,Case No: CO/3334/2009 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 20 April 2010 |
[2010] EWHC 1001 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Before: Lord Justice Carnwath
CO/3334/2009
Mr Nigel Pleming QC (instructed by Harrison Grant) appeared on behalf of the Claimants
Mr Jonathan Swift QC (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by TFL) appeared on behalf of the Interested Party
RULING ON COSTS
(As Approval)
: I think in this type of case where the arguments have fluctuated and indeed to some extent have been overtaken by events during the course of the proceedings, I have to take a broad view on the question of costs. It seems to me that the claimants have achieved a substantial degree of success in establishing that the principle of a third runway was not settled by the 2003 White Paper but is open to debate in the future and, as the law now stands, in the context of a national policy statement. The undertaking given by the Secretary of State is a major concession which was not made available at the beginning of the proceedings.
On the other hand, I accept that they have not succeeded on all points, or indeed on the way the case was formulated in the original grounds or the amended grounds. I also accept that the evidence has to some extent been inflated by aspects of the way the case was put, so I think there should be a deduction.
It seems to me that the appropriate order is for the Secretary of State to pay 60 per cent of the claimants’ costs.
As to Mr Chamberlain for Transport for London, I certainly understand their wish to be here and I was helped by their submissions, but that does not mean that separate representation was required. In my view, the appropriate order there is to make no order as to costs.
Thank you all very much for your help.
[2010] EWHC 1058 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Before: Lord Justice Carnwath
CO/3334/2009
Mr Nigel Pleming QC (instructed by Harrison Grant) appeared on behalf of the Claimants
Mr Jonathan Swift QC (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Mr Martin Chamberlain (instructed by TFL) appeared on behalf of the Interested Party
RULING ON REMEDY
(As Approved)
: I am not persuaded that any further relief is necessary beyond the undertaking. I also think I should be cautious before making a declaration in relation to a statement by a Minister to Parliament, particularly if it is not clear what exactly its effect will be. I will therefore accept the undertaking, but make no further order.
Secondly, I do not think it is right to require the undertaking to contain provision in respect of possible future legislation. That risks creating uncertainty until the content of any such legislation is known. As I said in the judgment, my task is to apply the law as it is, not to speculate as to changes in the future.
Apart from those points, it seems to me that the proposed undertaking by the Secretary of State in the form offered this morning is if anything wider than the one proposed by the claimants. Accordingly I will grant permission to apply for judicial review; accept the Secretary of State's undertaking not to seek to rely on section 12(1) of the Planning Act 2008 in connection with the adoption of a proposed airport national policy statement; and subject to that undertaking make no further order on the application.
[2010] EWHC 626 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Before: Lord Justice Carnwath
Case No: CO/3334/2009
Nigel Pleming QC, Nathalie Lieven QC, David Forsdick & Richard Wald (instructed by Harrison Grant) for the Claimant
Jonathan Swift, Karen Steyn, James Maurici (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant
Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Transport for London) for the Interested Party
Hearing date: Tuesday 23rd—Thursday 25th February, 2010
Lord Justice Carnwath:
Introduction
Whether there should be a third runway at Heathrow airport is a question of national importance and acute political controversy. It is a matter on which the main parties are currently divided, and which may well become a significant debating-point at the forthcoming general election. The court is concerned only with issues of legality.
The matters before the court begin with the announcement in 2003 of the government's support in principle for a third runway. The immediate focus is the consultation process which began in November 2007, and culminated in decisions announced in January 2009 (“the 2009 Decisions”). The claimants, who are a group of local authorities and organisations opposed to the runway proposal, challenge the legality of the 2009 Decisions. They are joined by Transport for London, which has statutory responsibility for transport arrangements for Greater London. The decision is defended by the Secretary of State for Transport.
The issues should be considered against the background of the development of government policy since the 2003 ATWP. Of particular relevance is the White Paper Planning for Sustainable Communities (Cm 7120), published in May 2007, which set the policy background for two major statutes in 2008, the Planning Act 2008 and the Climate Change Act 2008. The White Paper discussed two issues, which bear directly on the matters raised by the parties in this case: first, the increasing importance of climate change as a factor directing planning policies, and secondly, the need for a more efficient procedure for establishing and applying national planning policy in relation to major projects.
First, in relation to climate change, the Paper said:
“ Meeting the challenge of climate change: The evidence is now compelling that greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are changing the world's climate. The recent Stern Review makes it clear that ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth, people's health and the natural environment. The Climate Change Bill published on 13 March will introduce a clear, credible, long-term framework for the UK to achieve its goals of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and ensure steps are taken towards adapting to the impacts of climate change. The planning system also has an important role to play in enabling the UK to meet those challenges….” (para 1.14)
The new framework was given legislative effect by the Climate Change Act 2008.
Secondly, the Paper spoke of the perceived weaknesses of the planning procedures for major projects, and the need for clearer policy guidance:
“1.17 Neither do we have clear policy frameworks for all areas of nationally significant infrastructure. The result is that fundamental issues such as whether there is a need for additional capacity or whether a technology is proven and safe are addressed from scratch in each individual application. This can make the process of preparing applications for individual project proposals more onerous and uncertain, and mean that many months have to be spent at the inquiries into these proposals debating high level issues such as need….”
The lengthy process leading to the approval of the fifth terminal at Heathrow was cited as an illustration of the problem:
“1.20 The process for dealing with major infrastructure projects, from submission of the proposal to decision in particular, is too slow and complicated. It took seven years to get to a decision on Heathrow Terminal 5;…
Prolonged procedures of this sort rarely result in better decision making but they do impose high costs, not only on promoters but also on other participants in the process. Delays can also result in years of blight for individuals and communities during which people are unable to move house or receive compensation. And they can put at risk the country's economic and environmental well-being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buckinghamshire County Council and Others and Others v Secretary of State for Transport High Speed Two Ltd (Interested Party)
...This stage and nature of the decision-making process is not dissimilar to that which Carnwath LJ analysed, in a different context, in the Hillingdon 92 However, the characterisation of the decision as high or low level policy decision does not really answer the question. The word "policy" i......
-
William Walton+john Weir Fraser+mrs Maggie Fraser Against A Decision Made By The Scottish Ministers Dated 21 December 2009 From The Director Of Transport
...ipso facto preclude debate of it at a public local inquiry: see R (London Borough of Hillingdon) v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWHC 626 (Admin), Carnwath LJ at para 57-61, rejecting the supposition that "policy in the traditional planning sense" is a clear no-go area at any publ......
-
London Borough of Hillingdon and Others v The Secretary of State for Transport (Defendant/Applicant) The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Others (Interested Parties)
...this case are, to use the language of Carnwath LJ in R (on the application of Hillingdon and others) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWHC 626, showstoppers, in other words fundamental flaws that are incapable of remedy later in the process. 55 The claimants contended that prejudi......
-
R Neil Richard Spurrier v The Secretary of State for Transport
...spectrum of finality in policy decisions, as illustrated by R (Hillingdon London Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Transport [2010] EWHC 626 (Admin) (“ Hillingdon (2010)”), another claim involving proposed expansion at Heathrow, in which ministerial policy decisions in 2009 were ch......
-
Litigating Climate Change in National Courts: Recent Trends and Developments in Global Climate Law
...Civil & Admin. Tribunal) (Austl.); R (on application of Hillingdon LBC) v. Secretary of State for Transport & Transport for London [2010] EWHC 626 (Admin.) (Eng.); Fastlane Transp., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles et al., 2016 WL 4417206, at *61 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 26, 2016). 78. Sudiep Shriv......