Key Facts
- •Bristol Airport Ltd (BAL) applied to North Somerset Council (NSC) for planning permission to expand the airport's capacity by 2 million passengers per year.
- •NSC initially refused the application, but BAL appealed and the appeal was allowed by a panel of inspectors.
- •The Bristol Airport Action Network Coordinating Committee challenged the decision via judicial review, raising six grounds of challenge.
- •The main grounds of challenge concerned the Panel's assessment of the airport expansion's impact on climate change and a special area of conservation (SAC) for horseshoe bats.
Legal Principles
Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Planning decisions should focus on whether a proposed development is an acceptable land use, not on emissions control (which is handled by separate regimes).
Paragraph 188 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The Climate Change Act 2008 (CCA) places the obligation to meet carbon budgets on the Secretary of State, not local decision-makers.
Climate Change Act 2008
Whether an effect is significant and whether an assessment is adequate are matters of judgment for the decision-maker, subject to the Wednesbury standard.
R (Goesa Ltd) v Eastleigh Borough Council
The precautionary principle adds nothing to the argument when scientific uncertainty exists regarding a matter and a decision to address it later is made.
R (Friends of the Earth Limited) v Heathrow Airport Limited
In assessing the impact on a SAC, there's a distinction between mitigation (reducing harm) and compensation (offsetting harm after it occurs).
Smyth v SSCLG
Outcomes
Judicial review dismissed.
All grounds of challenge failed to demonstrate material errors of law by the Panel.
Ground 1 (interpretation of development plan policies) failed.
While the policies were broad enough to encompass aviation emissions, the Panel reasonably exercised its judgment in determining how to apply them given the national framework for addressing such emissions.
Ground 2 (interpretation of the Making Best Use of Existing Runways document) failed.
The Panel addressed the claimant's arguments and did not err in interpreting the document or providing adequate reasons.
Ground 3 (interpretation of NPPF paragraph 188) failed.
The CCA's system for controlling aviation emissions constitutes a separate pollution control regime, and the Panel did not wrongly assume the Secretary of State would comply with his duties.
Ground 4 (discounting the impact on the local carbon budget) failed.
The Panel acted rationally in giving no weight to local carbon budgets as they lack a basis in law or policy.
Ground 5 (impact of non-CO2 emissions) failed.
The Panel appropriately considered the scientific uncertainties surrounding non-CO2 emissions and the lack of a clear policy for their inclusion in assessments; the reliance on the future CCCAP was not unlawful.
Ground 6 (horseshoe bats and the SAC) failed.
The Panel correctly applied the legal principles regarding mitigation and compensation, relying on uncontested ecological evidence showing that the replacement habitat would prevent any adverse impact on the SAC.