“12. The Defendants acknowledge that they were committed to reaching a decision on the G1 project which embraced a proper evaluation of all its environmental and economic effects, even if that process led them to refuse planning permission and so to frustrate the Government’s published policy of support for making full use of the existing runway at Stansted Airport, i.e. in the White Paper “The Future of Air Transport” … They contend, however, that this was the approach which they took in reaching their decision. It was no more (and no less) than what was required of them in the proper exercise of their development control functions under the [1990 Act].”
“2. – Interpretation (1) In these Regulations – … “environmental information” means the environmental statement, including any further information and any other information, any representations made by any body required by these Regulations to be invited to make representations, and any representations duly made by any other person about the environmental effects of the development; … 3. – Prohibition on granting planning permission or subsequent consent without consideration of environmental information This regulation applies – (a) to every application for planning permission for EIA development received by the authority with whom it is lodged on or after the commencement of these Regulations; … (2) The relevant planning authority or the Secretary of State or an inspector shall not grant planning permission or subsequent consent pursuant to an application to which this regulation applies unless they have first taken the environmental information into consideration, and they shall state in their decision that they have done so.”
“11.26 Because we expect there to be an increasingly severe shortage of runway capacity at the major South East airports over the remainder of this decade, making full use of the available capacity at Stansted will be essential to avoid stifling growth. Making full use of Stansted would generate large net economic benefits. We therefore support growth at Stansted to make full use of the existing runway and expect the airport operator to seek planning permission in good time to cater for demand as it arises.”
“… the Inspector will consider the economic effects, along with all the other aspects of the application as part of the Inquiry. Those would also include environmental and any other impacts, and local people would have a further opportunity to raise their concerns, including any concerns on economic aspects, at the Inquiry. If the economic impact is disputed, concerns can be raised about that too … The Government do not want to predetermine through the legislation which issues the Inspector should consider or focus on at an Inquiry. The Inspector will need to be able to consider what the particular issues to be resolved are, and what to devote Inquiry time to, in each particular case. … the Inspector will still need to consider the balance between a project’s economic impact and other benefits, and will be able to consider the rigour of different analyses and assessments that are put forward, as is the case at the moment. We in no way dispute the importance of rigorous economic assessment and its role in any analysis of a major infrastructure project and in the debates that are necessary at the planning level. Material considerations that are disputed, whether economic, environmental, social, even aesthetic, will obviously be the territory of the Inquiry.”
“Again, we do not think that that requirement is necessary. Throughout the progress of the Bill, the Government have said that where there is a national policy statement White Paper, it should help to reduce the argument at a Planning Inquiry about the need for a specific development at a particular site – but that of course, the Inspector is likely to have to consider the balance between need and other factors. Those who oppose a specific development will be able to present their arguments against it, and it is right that they should have the opportunity to do so. It has never been the Government’s intention to rule out the possibility of the Inspector spending some time considering need, but that will be done in the context of what is said about need in the national policy statement. The Inspector must ensure that all relevant impacts of a specific development are considered during an Inquiry, and that means all material considerations, together with relevant impacts such as the economic or environmental impact.”
“14.43 I now consider that the main issues in this appeal (not in any order of priority) are: … (2) The extent to which the proposals accord in principle with current Government policy, with the statutory development plan and with the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England; (3) The effects of the proposals on the living conditions and health of residents in the area, particularly in terms of aircraft noise and air pollution; (4) The effects of aircraft noise on the quality of life of the area in terms of the educational, cultural and leisure activities of communities; … (10) The economic (including employment) benefits of the proposals.”
“14.344 In the absence of any significant harm in a number of respects as indicated above and of substantial conflict with the development plan, I conclude that the economic and other benefits I have identified, together particularly with the accordance with national policy support for making the best or full use of the existing runway at Stansted outweigh the harm I have found in respect of noise and the effects on the nature and character of communities.”
“Overall Conclusion 51. The Secretaries of State consider that the proposal would accord with the ATWP, including that it seeks to reconcile growth in aviation to meet the needs identified in the ATWP. They also consider that in terms of principle, the appeal proposal is not in conflict with the development plan. The proposal would also be acceptable and in line with the development plan, the ATWP and national policies in other respects, including that: there is no evidence that the proposal would breach relevant local and national policies relating to nitrogen depositions on vegetation; there would be adequate provision of water resources, including that sewerage and drainage capacity would be adequate; the road network and rail and coach access would be adequate; and, that there would be large direct economic benefits. 52. Factors weighing against the proposal are: that additional noise would be harmful to the living conditions and health of residents and to the quality of life in the area; that there would be some negative health effects due to changes in levels of air pollution, though these would be small and not a significant conflict with the development plan; that there could be further erosion of traditional social linkages in smaller settlements and increased unauthorised activity and some adverse effects with regard to impact on residential areas; and, that NOx levels are a cause for concern in terms of their impact on Hatfield Forest and nearby protected woodland. 53. Having weighed up all relevant considerations, the Secretaries of State are satisfied that the factors which weigh in favour of the proposal, notably compliance with the ATWP and the development plan, outweigh the harm identified. They therefore do not consider that there are any material considerations of sufficient weight which would justify refusing planning permission.”
“6.419 SSE provided substantial evidence including detailed analysis to demonstrate that the adverse impact of Stansted’s operations upon the UK trade deficit was c£1.27bn in 2004, would increase to c£1.51bn in the 25mppa case and to£2.11bn if 35mppa were to be permitted … On a Net Present Value (“NPV”) basis, calculated in accordance with the methodology set down in the HM Treasury Green Book …, the negative impact on the UK trade deficit if the proposed development were to be permitted would be£18.8bn at 35mppa compared to£6.2bn at 25mppa i.e. a net disbenefit of£12.6bn .”
“14.237 The ATWP refers to the value of outbound as well as inbound tourism but nevertheless recognises the widening gap in the tourism balance of payments. It therefore appears that the deficit has been taken into account in drawing up national policy. Furthermore, there has previously been a specific rejection by the Government of basing a restriction of aviation capacity on this factor. I understand that this position is at least in part due to the social benefits of tourism that the Government acknowledges, irrespective of whether BAA is correct to argue that outbound tourism expenditure can be taken to reflect the monetary value of these benefits. No indication is given in the ATWP that any particular threshold of balance of payments deficit on the current account should bring consideration of this factor into the equation in weighing economic benefits, nor is there any indication that its consideration of economic effects is limited to the balance of payments on the current account. In essence this matter raises broad considerations relating to the operation and management of the national economy, which is a question of Government policy that goes beyond the scope of the appeal. While noting the scale of the deficit, I therefore do not suggest that it should be included as part of a calculation of net benefits of the proposal or given significant weight having regard to the context set by the ATWP.”
“Policy” as descriptive of departmental decisions to pursue a particular course of conduct is a protean word and much confusion in the instant case has, in my view, been caused by a failure to define the sense in which it can properly be used to describe a topic which is unsuitable to be the subject of an investigation as to its merits at an inquiry at which only persons with local interests affected by the scheme are entitled to be represented. A decision to construct a nationwide network of motorways is clearly one of government policy in the widest sense of the term. Any proposal to alter it is appropriate to be the subject of debate in Parliament, not of separate investigations in each of scores of local inquiries before individual inspectors up and down the country upon whatever material happens to be presented to them at the particular inquiry over which they preside.”
“14.92 There is no doubt that noise is the environmental effect of operations at the airport and flights to and from it that is of most concern to the local community. It is referred to, often in strong terms, by most of the parties and individuals opposing the proposed G1 development, and [the LPA]points out the extent of objection from elected bodies. As well as technical evidence, I have heard and seen numerous oral and written submissions, many of them clearly deeply felt and correspondingly strongly expressed, from people with personal experience of airport and aircraft noise and its effects. I recognise the value of such local knowledge, and have the further benefit of my own extensive observations and experience in the area over a period of nearly 5 months. As a result I believe that I have a good grasp of the existing conditions in the area around the Airport.”
“Conclusions on the effects of noise 14.147 For the above reasons I consider that for those within the contours, and to a reducing extent some way beyond, noise from the increased ATMs arising from the G1 development would be harmful to the living conditions and health of residents and to the quality of life in the area including cultural and leisure activities. Some, but not all, of this harm could be mitigated. However, I do not consider that the levels of noise experienced at greater distances from the Stansted Airport (generally around 20 km but in some cases further depending on flight paths) to be such as to cause significant harm to living conditions or to quality of life. 14.148 One of the criteria in Structure Plan policy BIW9 includes the impact on public health and noise pollution levels. However, as BAA points out, under the policy this is only a consideration with no limit values set, and ECC [Essex County Council] does not suggest a breach of the policy. … [T]he policy states that the criteria are to be considered “having regard to the need for an appropriate hierarchy of aerodrome and aviation sites.”
“14.334 I have concluded that additional air noise, and to a lesser extent, ground noise would be harmful to the living conditions and health of residents and to the quality of life in the area. Some, but not all, of this harm could be mitigated. The proposed development would thus conflict with criteria in Structure Plan and Local Plan policies, but the policies require this to be weighed against the need for the development, which in this case is established by the ATWP. I note also that the number of people affected is relatively small in relation to numbers around many other airports.”
“6.394 Thus it is possible to have an evidence-based policy for air traffic expansion or for climate security, but not both together. Indeed, it is only possible to support air traffic expansion and climate security together by replacing a respect for evidence with a vague hope that “something will turn up” to rescue us from the contradiction to which all current evidence points.”
“6.386 Aviation is highly damaging to the climate both because it is energy intensive and because plane exhausts in the upper atmosphere cause further warming effects, roughly doubling or quadrupling the effect of the carbon emissions alone [the so-called “radiative forcing” effect]. Any further increase in aviation would be disproportionately climate damaging over the timeframe in which Stern says action is most important and valuable.”
“6.392 SSE’s witness drew a distinction between a Government policy and a Government claim which purported to be factual but was not supported by the evidence. He provided examples from the ATWP Progress Report …, for example, the statement that “Inclusion in the Emissions Trading Scheme is the most efficient and cost-effective way to ensure that the sector plays its part in tackling climate change.”
“6.394 Thus it is possible to have an evidence-based policy for air traffic expansion or for climate security, but not both together. Indeed, it is only possible to support air traffic expansion and climate security together by replacing a respect for evidence with a vague hope that “something will turn up” to rescue us from the contradiction to which all current evidence points. 6.395 It is therefore not possible for a decision either to allow this Appeal or to refuse it to be consistent with Government policy on air traffic expansion, climate security and respect for evidence simultaneously. It is, accordingly, impossible to the Inquiry to avoid taking a position, implicitly or explicitly, on the relative merits of the three.”
“6.400 Allowing a non-essential increase in climate impacts at just the point when reduction is most urgent and important would seriously undermine the Government’s credibility on climate change. The only decision which could potentially reconcile climate security with expansion would be to allow the expansion to proceed if and when – but not until – some combination of technical improvements or emissions trading can be demonstrated to have actually achieved a net reduction of climate change impacts from aviation in line with Government and EU targets for reduction of other categories of emissions.”
“14.72 SSE reminded the Inquiry of the gravity of the challenge represented by climate change, and of the need to take action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases as soon as possible. It pointed out the contribution that the G1 development would make to CO 2 emissions, exacerbated by radiative forcing – the enhanced effect of emissions of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases at high altitude – adding to the already growing effects of aviation relative to the UK’s targets on CO 2 emissions, and the limited potential for reducing this through operational or technological means. It also gave moving evidence of the impacts of climate change on the environment and peoples of the Arctic, and of their understandable fears for the future. Such points and similar ones were also made by many others at the Inquiry and in written representations. 14.73 I find it very significant, though not in the least surprising, that none of this is disputed by BAA, nor indeed by any other party at the Inquiry or in written representations. 14.74 SSE goes on to submit in various ways that policy support for expansion of aviation is incompatible with the acknowledged need to address greenhouse gas emissions. Again this view, in general terms or with specific reference to Stansted, found support among many others.”
“14.75 To my mind the Government’s policy on aviation as set out in the ATWP cannot legitimately be said to have ignored the issue of climate change. On the contrary, as BAA points out, it explicitly addresses the matter including consideration of how aviation contributes to climate change and the Government’s approach to it generally and with particular reference to aviation. …”
“14.77 … In the light of the matters I have outlined above, I am in no doubt that Government policy seeks to reconcile growth in aviation to meet the needs identified in the ATWP with action to address climate change. It is clear that SSE and others do not believe that the correct balance has been struck and/or question the likely effectiveness of the proposed mechanisms to address the issue of climate change, but that goes to the heart of Government policy. I do not question or seek to curtail the legitimacy of debate on the matter, but I maintain my view that such debate lies outside the scope of the present appeal. … 14.80 In conclusion on climate change policy, I consider that questions of the appropriateness and effectiveness of Government policies on aviation and climate change and their compatibility, while undoubtedly of great importance, are matters for debate in Parliament and elsewhere rather than through this appeal. I respectfully suggest that the Secretaries of State should not consider such questions in this context.”
“Government Policy on Climate Change 29 The Secretaries of State agree with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions on Government policy on climate change as set out in IR14.72 -14.80. They share the Inspector’s view that Government policy seeks to reconcile growth in aviation to meet the needs identified in the ATWP with action to address climate change (IR14.77). They also agree with the Inspector’s conclusion that questions of the appropriateness and effectiveness of Government policies on aviation and climate change, and their compatibility, are matters for debate in Parliament and elsewhere, rather than through this appeal (IR14.80). …”