Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning the procedure by which the Secretary of State for Transport considered a development consent order application for Manston Airport's reopening as a freight facility.
- •Examining Authority recommended refusal, citing Riveroak's insufficient demonstration of additional need beyond existing airports.
- •Riveroak's Azimuth report, based on confidential expert interviews, was given little weight by the Examining Authority due to non-disclosure of transcripts.
- •Secretary of State's initial approval was quashed; subsequent reconsideration involved two consultation exercises and a new IBA report.
- •Appellant challenged procedural fairness, arguing withholding of Azimuth interview transcripts and lack of opportunity to comment on the IBA report were unfair.
- •High Court dismissed the judicial review claim.
Legal Principles
Common law principles of procedural fairness require a fair process, depending on facts, decision-making process, and statutory framework.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p. Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 at 560D-H, Lloyd v McMahon [1987] AC 625 at page 702, R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex p. Coughlan [2001] QB 213
Consultation doesn't require revealing every submission; enough information for an intelligent response suffices.
R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex p. Coughlan [2001] QB 213 at paragraph 112
Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 (2010 Rules) govern development consent order applications; Rule 19 addresses procedure after examination, and Rule 20 addresses procedure after quashing a decision.
Planning Act 2008, Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010
Rule 19(3)(b) requires notification and opportunity for representations if the Secretary of State considers new evidence and is for that reason disposed to disagree with the Examining Authority's recommendation.
2010 Rules, Rule 19(3)(b)
Where a consideration is material, the weight attached is for the decision-maker unless irrational.
Tesco Stores Ltd. v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Court found no breach of procedural fairness in withholding Azimuth interview transcripts; the weight given to the Azimuth report was a matter for the decision-maker. Rule 19 applied to the reconsideration, but the IBA report was not the reason for disagreeing with the Examining Authority's recommendation. The advice to the Minister regarding future airport capacity was not legally flawed; it emphasized the uncertainty of future capacity, not its irrelevance.