“(i) Repeated failures to record the evidence heard at the inquiry (whether through written proofs, evidence in chief, cross-examination or re-examination) accurately, fully, fairly, or (in some instances) at all; (ii) Repeated failures to deal with concessions made by parties on matters of fact, policy or expertise, or to provide an explanation as to why the Inspector took a contrary view to such concessions or common ground; (iii) Selective analysis of the evidence or answers given, without dealing with the clear countervailing evidence to the contrary, or giving any satisfactory reasons or explanation for not dealing with that countervailing evidence; (iv) Inherent inconsistencies of approach in the Inspector’s analysis which reveal that the Inspector has failed to take all relevant matters into account, or has taken into account irrelevant matters; and (v) Failing to give proper, adequate and intelligible reasoning.”
“6. An application under section 288 is not an opportunity for a review of the planning merits of an Inspector’s decision. An allegation that an Inspector’s conclusion on the planning merits is Wednesbury perverse is, in principle, within the scope of a challenge under section 288, but the court must be astute to ensure that such challenges are not used as a cloak for what is, in truth, a rerun of the arguments on the planning merits. 7. In any case, where an expert tribunal is the fact finding body the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness is a difficult obstacle for the applicant to surmount. That difficulty is greatly increased in most planning cases because the Inspector is not simply deciding questions of fact, he or she is reaching a series of planning judgments. For example, is the building in keeping with its surroundings? Could its impact on the landscape be sufficiently ameliorated by landscaping? Is the site sufficiently accessible by public transport? et cetera. Since a significant element of judgment is involved there will usually be scope for a fairly broad range of possible views, none of which can be categorised as unreasonable. 8. Moreover, the Inspector’s conclusions will invariably be based not merely on the evidence heard at an inquiry or an informal hearing, or contained in written representations, but, and this will often be of crucial importance, upon the impressions received on the site inspection. Against this background an applicant alleging an Inspector has reached a Wednesbury unreasonable conclusion on matters of planning judgment, faces a particularly daunting task. …”
“…counsel …(submitted) … that the appellants having called high-level experts who had expressed opinions about this, the inspector, without any evidence to contradict those opinions, was bound to accept them. That just is a complete and total fallacy. The inspector (who is a man of experience, and, above all, specialised qualifications, who is sent to assess a problem of this kind) is supposed to use his own knowledge and, if I may say so, commonsense as well. He is intended to use his commonsense and he is not bound to accept the evidence of experts. It is exactly the same situation that justices and juries find themselves in when experts of great distinction go into the witness box before them. The inspector is no more bound to accept the evidence of the experts than are they.”
“36. The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the “principal important controversial issues”, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.”
“The carrying out on operational land, by a relevant airport operator or its agent, of development (including the erection of an operational building) in connection with the provision of services and facilities at a relevant airport”
“The principle of the development of a passenger terminal at Coventry Airport is considered to be in accordance with the policies of the development plan and other material considerations, notably national and regional air transport policy.”
“The local planning authority is now therefore to be considered a supporter of the planning merits of the IPF and its case is reported as such in Section 7 below.”
“11.1.3 If the Secretaries of State accept my recommendations on ground (c), then all that is required to remedy the breaches is to fit the main IPF building to the maximum possible area for an operational building within an airport containing a new passenger terminal that would not need planning permission. This could be achieved by demolishing all of the alleged piers … To enable the non-operational floor of the building to be brought into operational use for the claimed airport-related office use, other than as part of the passenger terminal, an external staircase would need to be reinstalled. I am satisfied that these requirements in the alternative would indicate clearly to the appellants what was required to remedy the breaches of control, if permission for the deemed applications were withheld. My recommendation on this ground of appeal for both notices is framed accordingly, should the Secretary of State have cause to consider it.”
“76. The Secretaries of State conclude that the development is in accordance with the development plan. They consider that no overriding objections arise in respect of airspace management, cultural heritage, landscape and visual matters, ecology and nature conservation, ornithological matters, and risk. However, there are significant adverse impacts in respect of noise and, to a lesser extent, odours, primarily from aircraft exhaust fumes. Public transport to serve the IPF development is presently poor, but targets for improvements are set out in the Section 106 Agreement. 77. There are significant socio-economic benefits, arising from the development in terms of diversification of the local economy, job creation and training initiatives close to areas of deprivation, increasing the image and profile of Coventry and offering increased choice to local business and leisure travellers. The development also makes beneficial use of existing airport infrastructure and capacity in line with guidance in the White Paper: The Future of Air Transport. The introduction of a LINK-MOVA system at Tollbar End roundabout would reduce congestion and queuing at the junction and on the A45 and A46, and would be likely to lead to improvements in air quality locally. The various noise related measures offered as part of the mitigation/compensation package in the section 106 Agreement offer a substantial measure of control over flying activities at what is at present an entirely unrestricted airport. The fact that operations at the airport are at present unrestricted is of importance in assessing the value of, and weight to be given to, the package in the section 106 Agreement, and the introduction of the controls offered would be a substantial benefit to the local community. 78. The Secretaries of State therefore conclude that there are no material considerations which cause them to determine these appeals other than in accordance with the development plan.”
“60. The Secretaries of State conclude that the proposals are in conflict with the development plan. They consider that no overriding objections arise in respect of airspace management, landscape and visual matters, ecology and nature conservation, ornithological matters, and risk. There are significant socio-economic benefits arising from the development which would benefit the local economy, including: job creation and training initiatives close to areas of deprivation, increasing the profile of Coventry and Warwickshire nationally and internationally as a tourist and business destination; and offering increased choice to local business and leisure travellers. 61. The Secretaries of State consider that the various noise related measures offered as part of the mitigation/compensation package in the Section 106 Agreement offer an improved level of control over flying activities that were established with the Interim Passenger Facility. However, whilst these measures would indeed benefit the local community, they would be offset by the increase in Passenger Air Transport Movements, the noisiest aircraft movements at Coventry Airport. 62. The Secretaries of State consider that there would be significant adverse impacts in respect of noise and, to a lesser extent odours, primarily from aircraft exhaust fumes. Despite improvements compared with the Interim Passenger Terminal development, they consider that the mitigation and compensation measures offered do not outweigh such harm by reason of noise and general disturbance from increased Passenger Air Transport Movements which would be caused by this significantly larger scale development. 63. The Secretaries of State also consider that public transport serving the airport, whilst being improved, would remain poor and, whilst they consider the targets for modal shift away from the car challenging, they do not, for the reasons in paragraph 42 above, consider them to be realistic or achievable under the circumstances proposed in this case. They also consider it relevant that passenger services would be increased at an airport with poor public transport accessibility and provision, in a situation where those services are provided only a short distance away at an airport with far superior public transport accessibility and provision, and serving essentially the same catchment. They also consider that there would be harm by reason of noise, and to a lesser extent, visual impact on the local cultural heritage, the latter of which cannot be mitigated. 64. Although the development would make beneficial use of existing airport infrastructure, the Secretaries of State have considerable doubts as to whether it would represent the best use as required by the ATWP, given that it would detract from Coventry Airport’s specialist niche role for freight operations, for which the availability of public transport is less important, and would duplicate passenger services already available at a nearby airport much better served by public transport. 65. In this particular case, having weighed up the arguments for and against the proposal, the Secretaries of State have concluded that the harmful impact caused by the proposal and the conflict with sustainability objectives, is not outweighed by the socio-economic and other benefits, including the proposed mitigation/compensation package proposed through the Section 106 Agreement. Overall, the Secretaries of State consider that the proposal would not accord with development plan policy. They do not consider that there are any material considerations to lead them to determine the proposal other than in accordance with the development plan. Formal decision 66. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector’s recommendation. They hereby dismiss your client’s appeal and refuse planning permission …”
“Since the decision was a very close run, as the Inspector recognised, the existence of deficits which he mistakenly omitted to put into the balance, even if relatively small, would be very important.”
“20.87 Sustainability is a wide ranging concept with many strands. In the context of this appeal I consider the following topics which fall under this broad heading are of particular relevance: • consistency with objectives to integrate sustainable development; • consistency with objectives to reduce the need to travel, especially by car, via accessibility in terms of multi-modal choice; • car parking provision; • use of existing airport infrastructure; • the need for the NPT; • clawback of air passengers flying from outside the region; • climate change.” • consistency with objectives to integrate sustainable development; • consistency with objectives to reduce the need to travel, especially by car, via accessibility in terms of multi-modal choice; • car parking provision; • use of existing airport infrastructure; • the need for the NPT; • clawback of air passengers flying from outside the region; • climate change.”
“Conclusion on Sustainability 20.105 Having reviewed the evidence my overall conclusion on sustainability is that, on balance, the NPT proposal would not represent a sustainable form of development, conflicting in particular with sustainability objectives for transport. Given that “sustainable development is the core principle underpinning planning” [PPS1, para 3], I regard this as a very important factor weighing against allowing the appeal. I consider it to be decisive in itself.”
“20.93 It is also hoped to introduce a new shuttle service between the NPT and Warwick/Leamington Spa … The timing of introduction of that service is, however, very uncertain given that it is to be linked to a “Passenger Threshold”, which has yet to be fixed, of passenger numbers travelling to the airport from Warwick and Royal Leamington Spa. If the threshold were set at too high a level the service might never materialise. Even WDC accept that provision of this service is no more than an idea in principle (8.8). Because of the uncertainties surrounding it, I feel unable to accord any significant weight to this prospective bus service. …”
“41. The Secretaries of State have had regard to the possibility of a new shuttle bus service between the proposed development and Warwick/Leamington Spa (IR20.93), and that this service is being examined as part of the Bus Strategy that is being developed as an element of the Airport Surface Access Strategy. Like the Inspector, given the uncertainties surrounding this proposal, they accord it limited weight.”
“F. Coventry Airport, as primarily a freight airport, provides a complementary service to those at BIA. Development plans for Warwick District and neighbouring authorities should include policies for the assessment of proposals for the expansion of Coventry Airport. Criteria should require the approach to environmental assessment and impacts set out for BIA above, and any proposals for use of Coventry Airport by charter or scheduled passenger flights should be subject to the availability of public transport to serve the airport. … H. Local transport plans and the Airport Surface Access Strategies should aim to ensure that improvements to strategic and local transport networks and interchanges are provided in order to ensure continued access by all modes to airports is maintained. Within these plans and strategies, challenging targets should be set to encourage a greater percentage of trips, by passengers, visitors and staff, by more sustainable modes.”
“20.93 … Financial penalties are to be levied in the event of targets for the staff service not being met, but there are no equivalent penalties in respect of bus services for airline passengers. I regard that latter point as a weakness of the package offered, sharing the concern of CPRE … 20.94 Amongst other things, the ASAS forming part of the S106 Agreement indicates that the ATF has already set modal split targets for passengers and staff for 2011 (or 1.75mppa, whichever comes first) of 8% by public transport and 80% ratio respectively; and for 2014 (or 2mppa, whichever comes first) of 10% by public transport and 75% ratio respectively. … These targets would be reviewed annually by the ATF, having regard to Government guidance, with a view to making them more challenging as passenger throughput increases. 20.95 I acknowledge the positive spirit in which these targets are set and are to be reviewed, and the laudable aim of encouraging the provision of new bus services, and diversion of existing services, to the airport. However, I am very sceptical about the likelihood of even the initial passenger targets being achieved, and it is relevant to note that WMIAL acknowledge that the targets in the S106 Agreement represent a minimum public transport provision. … The 737 service is not dedicated to the airport and, on the occasions when I travelled on it, picked up and dropped off non-airport related passengers, including shoppers and people working on the Middlemarch Business Park, at many points along its route. I also agree with BIAL that from Coventry Railway station, one of the key stops on the 737 service, it is easier to travel to BHX than CVT … It continues to be difficult to gain convenient access to the airport by means other than the private car. Moreover, the provision of extensive car parking (3,825 spaces being included in the application) to serve the NPT so conveniently close to the terminal will, I believe, continue to attract motorists, notwithstanding any actions by WMIAL intended to discourage use of the car. My reservations on this point are important in the context of Government guidance on modal share targets: I accept that the targets are challenging, but I am not persuaded that they are realistic or achievable. I regard that as a very important point: it would be nonsense to allow a development on the basis of a challenging target having been set, if there were little realistic prospect of that target being met. 20.96 A similar conclusion was reached in respect of the IPF development. Nevertheless that development was considered acceptable on the basis that the package of measures to reduce use of the car was acceptable, in that it was doing as much as possible in connection with a modest (my underlining) passenger air terminal … The IPF complex, capped at 0.98mppa, is not only modest in size but its physical limitations effectively render it self-regulating in terms of passenger throughput. With a floor area of 10,250² the NPT would be much larger in scale, and I would not regard it as a modest development, even capped at 2mppa. On any reasonable comparison with the physical capacity and constraints of the IPF, the NPT would be capable of accommodating a passenger throughput considerably in excess of the proposed 2mppa cap. Moreover, pressure for that cap to be lifted is probable …, though I agree with the appellant that any such proposal would have to be determined on its own merits at the time. 20.97 With the above points in mind I feel that the NPT proposal is clearly distinguishable from the IPF development. To adopt a phrase used by objectors, it is “a different animal”
“42. The Secretaries of State have had regard to the targets for modal shift set out in the Airport Surface Access Strategy … They agree with the Inspector that the targets are challenging, and they consider that the targets are consistent in this respect with the Inspector’s report into the emerging Local Plan. However, for the reasons set out in IR20.95, they consider that, in this particular case, there is little prospect of these targets being met (IR20.95), and, like the Inspector, they are not persuaded that they are realistic or achievable. They agree with the Inspector that it would be a nonsense to allow a development on the basis of a challenging target being met (IR20.95). They also agree with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IR20.96, that the proposed development should not be regarded as modest, in contrast to the Interim Passenger Facility. 43. For the above reasons, the Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector that the proposed terminal would not meet sustainability objectives in terms of integrating sustainable development and reducing the need to travel by car (IR20.97).”
“There is currently very limited public transport access to Coventry Airport.”
“The development of a Surface Access Strategy for Coventry Airport should identify the need for a step-change in public transport (bus) provision (services and infrastructure), as well [as] access improvements for cyclists and pedestrians.”
“20.91 In the decision on the IPF development it was concluded that the public transport provision then proposed was the bare minimum to satisfy RSS policy T11 … With a capped capacity of 0.98mppa the IPF was to be served by the 737 shuttle bus service operating hourly between the airport and Coventry rail and bus stations. … 20.92 So far as the current proposal is concerned, with passenger numbers intended to be capped at 2mppa, the frequency of the shuttle bus would be doubled to one every half hour … In very simple terms, comparing the NPT proposal with the IPF situation, twice as many buses on the 737 route are to be provided for twice as many passengers. A new free local employee bus service is now in operation, centred on the airport and connecting with a number of local areas. … I do not regard these improvements to public transport accessibility as representing the step change mentioned in the LTP which, though not part of the development plan, is nevertheless a material consideration. WCC go so far as to say that it would be an important consideration if a step change were not achieved …, and WDC also accept that the LTP is a weighty consideration … I agree with their views on the weight to be accorded to the LTP, especially in the overall context of Government policy on sustainability.”
“The Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IP20.91-20.92, that the proposed improvements to public transport accessibility do not represent the step change mentioned in the Local Transport Plan. They accord this lack of a step change significant weight.”
“20.90 I consider it relevant to bear in mind that there is an alternative airport (BHX) [i.e. BIA] only a few miles from CVT, offering services to similar destinations (but within a much wider range of destinations), itself a major transport interchange, and serving a very similar catchment. If the NPT appeal were dismissed virtually all the services which would have been provided would be readily available a relatively short distance away at BHX. On that basis there is on the face of it some merit in the argument that there is no need for the NPT development … and it also has a bearing on the sustainability objective of reducing the need to travel by car. Guidance in PPS23 … is that “Applicants do not normally have to prove the need for their proposed development, or discuss the merits of alternative sites.”
“38. The Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector that it is relevant to bear in mind that there is an alternative airport (Birmingham International) only a few miles from Coventry Airport offering services to similar destinations (but within a much wider range of destinations), itself a major transport interchange, and serving a very similar catchment … They have had regard to the fact that if the appeal is dismissed, virtually all the services which would have been provided would be readily available a relatively short distance away at Birmingham International Airport. On that basis, they agree with the Inspector that, on the face of it, there is some merit in the argument that there is no need for the proposed development, and it also has a bearing on the sustainability objective of reducing the need to travel by car … 39 For the reasons set out in IR20.90, the Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector that, in line with guidance in PPS23, in this particular case, the availability of alternative sites may be a material consideration. They agree with the Inspector that the extra passenger services associated with the proposed development would undoubtedly be polluting in terms of extra aircraft noise and odours. … 45. For the reasons set out in IR20.100-20.101, the Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector that passenger services at Coventry are likely to contribute in small part to clawing back passengers, but that this might well be at the expense of claw back achieved by improvements at Birmingham International Airport, given the proximity of the two airports and the similar services offered. Overall, they agree with the Inspector that the clawback point should be regarded as inconclusive, and that it should be given little, if any, weight …”
“The Fall Back Position Air Cargo 20.77. CVT has a number of important attractions so far as the air cargo market is concerned. These include: its 24 hour operation; its strategic location in the “Golden Triangle”, including its position close to the heart of what remains of the UK manufacturing industry; its flexible attitude to cargo handling on the aprons; and spare runway capacity … 20.78 It is said that if this appeal fails WMIAL would have no alternative but to pursue other options, including growth in cargo operations and expansion of CVT’s role as a cargo airport … I accept that it would be reasonable to expect the appellant to pursue growth in cargo operations in the event of this appeal being dismissed. In particular, I would expect express cargo operations to grow, building on the niche role CVT has already established. The appellant claims that an aggressive and diverse cargo marketing approach could cause CVT to become an attractive base for older, and implicitly relatively noisy, freighters not welcomed at other airports, and with an increase in night flying … If such a situation were to arise the Secretary of State for Transport has powers, undersection 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 , to regulate noise and vibration from aircraft … I would respectfully expect consideration to be given to exercising these powers if the airport did indeed become a base for noisy aircraft, particularly if they were to be used at night. For that reason I consider WMIAL’s description of the choices open to it … to be too simplistic, even perhaps unrealistic, and caution against giving undue weight to the alleged adverse environmental consequences of the claimed fall back position of unrestrained growth in cargo operations. It has to be borne in mind that WMIAL are likely to seek to expand all aspects of the airport operation in any event, even if the appeal is allowed … 20.79 Although growth of cargo operations is probable in the event of the appeal being dismissed, I have strong reservations about the scale of growth likely to be achieved. Mr Llewellyn’s initial position was that with aggressive marketing a growth rate of up to 30% could be achieved by 2014 … Pressed on that point, including in answer to me, it was conceded that without passenger services a realistic growth rate would be about 10%, compared with 5% growth with passenger services … Indeed in re-examination it was acknowledged that a 30% growth of freight at CVT was unlikely to happen … Mr Llewellyn also acknowledged that CVT might not be ideal for the vast majority of air cargo in the UK because of the runway length and the way cargo is consolidated by forwarders around Heathrow … I consider that the noise restrictions imposed by the IPF S106 Agreement could also have some restraining effect on growth in air cargo operations. Business Aviation 20.80 This is another element of current airport operations which WMIAL would seek to expand in the event of the appeal being dismissed. I accept that CVT already has the essential infrastructure needed for a successful business aviation operation. The requirements are relatively basic: a simple building with easy access to landside car parking, and reasonable access to taxiway and runway is all that is required. At CVT such facilities are already available at Airport West, where passengers have direct access from private waiting lounges to the apron, or directly by car to the aircraft. These facilities are very similar in character to business aviation facilities at BHX [BIA]. 20.81 Mr Hind and Mr Rayment both consider that there is considerable potential for expansion of the business aviation operation at CVT … and I take account of Mr Rayment’s extensive experience of this type of operation … In the light of Mr Rayment’s evidence about the type of facilities required, and that of my own observations of the facilities available at CVT, I am persuaded that there is potential for expansion of business aviation operations at CVT. Forecasts of the scale of such growth I regard as much more uncertain: that is borne out by Mr Rayment’s comment that forecasting even to the following day is difficult … and to some extent by the evidence of Mr Hind that passenger services and business aviation do not mix … On that latter point it is implicit that current passenger services operated from the IPF are profitable … and there is no evidence to convince me that passenger services operated from the IPF would cease in the event of the current appeal being dismissed. That appears to be borne out by BIA’s one time interest in acquiring CVT and running it with the IPF … It is also relevant that CVT’s market for business aviation might reasonably be said to be dependent on the relatively closely surrounding business market, which to my mind implies at least an element of limitation. … Conclusions on Fall Back Position 20.82 I accept that there is potential for growth in freight and business aviation operations if the appeal is dismissed. However, I view with considerable caution suggestions that such growth would be dramatic with severe environmental consequences, bearing in mind that there would be an intention to expand such operations in any event even if the appeal is allowed …, and that a quiet operations policy and an air quality programme were introduced by the IPF S106 Agreement. I can, however, see no basis for the improbable notion that CVT would close if the appeal were dismissed …”
“The fall-back position 34. For the reasons in IR20.77-IR20.81, the Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector that, if the appeal is dismissed, there is potential for growth in freight and business operations (IR20.82). However, given the appellants’ intention to expand such operations in any event if the appeal is allowed, and that a quiet operations policy and an air quality programme were introduced by the Section 106 Agreement accompanying the Interim Passenger Terminal decision, they, like the Inspector, treat with considerable caution suggestions that such growth would be dramatic with severe environmental consequences. They also agree with the Inspector’s view that there is no basis for the notion that Coventry Airport would close if the appeal were dismissed (IR20.82).”
“Conclusion on Noise 20.26 My overall conclusion on noise is that, notwithstanding the mitigation/compensation package offered, and the new NPRs proposed, the NPT development would add significantly to the loss of amenity local residents already experience, particularly at unsocial hours, from the noise of Thomsonfly passenger aircraft. In my opinion this is an important factor weighing against allowing this appeal.”
“Noise Mitigation and Compensation 21. For the reasons given in IR20.17 and 20.20, the Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector that the mitigation/compensation package now offered would provide significant benefits. 22. However, like the Inspector, and despite the improved benefits mentioned in paragraph 21 above, the Secretaries of State remain concerned about the extent to which the loss of residential amenity is mitigated and compensated for (IR20.21). Having regard to paragraph 21 above, and the Inspector’s comments in IR20.21-IR20.23 and IR[2]0.129-IR20-131, they consider that, despite the mitigation/compensation package offered, there would still remain a significant loss of local residential amenity. This loss of amenity would be in addition to the loss already experienced as a result of the Interim Passenger Terminal facility. 23. The Secretaries of State have had regard to the fact that new Noise Preferential Routes were proposed and were about to be promulgated towards the end of the inquiry (IR20.24). They agree with the Inspector, for the reasons set out in IR20.24, that there is uncertainty about the overall net benefits of the proposed new Noise Preferential Routes, and so these routes should be accorded no weight in assessing the impact of aircraft noise. … Conclusions on Noise 25. Overall, for the reasons given above, the Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector that, notwithstanding the significant benefits of the mitigation/compensation package offered, and the new Noise Preferential Routes proposed, the proposed development would add significantly to the loss of amenity local residents already experience, particularly at unsocial hours, from the noise of Thomsonfly passenger aircraft (IR20.26). They agree with the Inspector that this is an important factor weighing against the proposal (IR20.26).”
“20.148 There would be conflict with PPG24 in terms of disturbance from aircraft noise. Although I accept that the noise mitigation/compensation package now offered represents an improvement on that already in place, I have reservations about its adequacy given the scale of development proposed. … 20.157 There would be significant adverse impacts in respect of aircraft noise and, to a lesser extent, odours from aircraft exhaust fumes. Despite the improvements compared with the IPF package, I am not persuaded that the mitigation/compensation offered is sufficient to outweigh the harm by reason of noise and general disturbance from increased PATMs which would be caused by this significantly larger scale development.”
“20.132 WMIAL state quite correctly that there has been no change in policies since the IPF development was found, on its merits, to be in accordance with the development plan. That applies equally to national policies. However, the proposed NPT development now has to be assessed on its own merits. I have already indicated my view that the NPT is a “different animal” from the IPF …: in particular it is of substantially greater scale. I see no reason in principle, therefore, why a different decision on development plan and national policy conformity cannot be reached in the present case.”
“Development Plan 54. The Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector that there has been no change in development plan policies since the decision on the Interim Passenger Facility was made (IR20.132). However, they recognise that the Inspector’s report into the emerging Warwick Local Plan has been published. The Secretaries of State also agree with the Inspector that each case has to be assessed on its own merits, and that the proposed development is of a substantially greater scale than the Interim Passenger Facility (IR20.132).”
“Coventry Airport, as primarily a freight airport, provides a complementary service to those at BIA.” (a) As to the first of those two matters, Mr Village submitted that the NPT proposal was subject to the availability of public transport to serve the airport, but that the Inspector had inexplicably decided otherwise. Mr Village maintained that the Inspector had thus acted in contradiction of the IPF decision, in which both the IPF Inspector and the Secretaries of State were satisfied that there was no conflict with policy T11F on this basis (see paragraph 10.18.10 of the IPFIR). Mr Village submitted that the two decisions are simply irreconcilable and that the NPT Inspector had failed to give any reason or explanation for his different approach. (b) As to the second of the two matters, Mr Village referred to paragraphs 20.102 and 20.103 of the NPTIR, which contain the Inspector’s reasoning with regard to whether CVT would be complementary to BIA if the appeal were to be allowed and which include the following passage: “20.103 The dispute also revolves around the meaning of “complementary”, leading on to whether CVT with the services offered by the NPT proposal would be complementary to BHX. My view is that for CVT to be complementary it should add to or make complete what is available at BHX. That interpretation is borne out by, e.g. the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.”
“20.160 Although the development would make beneficial use of existing airport infrastructure, I have considerable doubts whether it would represent the best use as required by the ATWP, given that it would detract from CVT’s specialist niche role for freight operations, for which the availability of public transport is less important, and would duplicate passenger services already available at a nearby airport much better served by public transport. There is, therefore, a conflict with ATWP policy and this also weighs against the proposal.”
“Neutral Matters 20.156 I consider that no clear cut overriding objections arise in respect of airspace management …”