Campaigners challenge decision to leave Stansted planning application with council

Campaign group Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) has formally applied for a judicial review of the Transport Secretary’s decision to continue to allow a Stansted Airport planning application to be determined by Uttlesford District Council.

Manchester Airports Group, the owner of Stansted Airport, applied last February for permission for passenger numbers to rise to 43 million a year. It saw 25.9 million passengers in 2017 and has permission for 35 million.

SSE is represented by planning barristers Paul Stinchcombe QC and Richard Walk, both of 39 Essex Chambers, and by solicitors Birketts LLP.

It argues that the current airport expansion plans meet the legal definition of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project ('NSIP') and so the planning application should be determined nationally by an expert team in the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State, rather than locally by UDC.

SSE chairman Peter Sanders said: "High Court proceedings do not come cheap and so we do not take such actions lightly but only after careful thought and advice. SSE's primary objective is to seek to safeguard the local community and local environment from unfettered and unsustainable airport expansion.

“Regrettably, legal proceedings are sometimes an unavoidable part of trying to achieve this objective but we must try to ensure a fair and thorough process for dealing with this planning application."

SSE said it would ask the High Court for an expedited hearing.

It said it had meanwhile submitted “extensive evidence” to Uttlesford setting out substantial grounds for refusing the application, adding that it intended to submit further such evidence to the council “over the coming weeks and months”.

A DfT spokesperson said: “The Government is supportive of airports making best use of their existing runways as long as they address economic, environmental and other relevant planning issues.

“We expect airports to work closely with communities and for approval to be determined by the appropriate planning authority.”

A London Stansted Airport spokesperson said: “Our application to Uttlesford District Council to increase the existing limits on passengers from 35 to 43 million a year was submitted in February 2018 following an extensive period of consultation with the local community.

“Based on the feedback we received, we’ve committed to making best use of existing capacity within previously agreed limits on aircraft noise and flight numbers and within the airport’s current boundary.

“We support the Secretary of State for Transport’s decision that the application should be determined locally. This is in line with the Government’s planning policies and consistent with its clear support for airports seeking to make best use of existing runway capacity.”

A spokesman for Uttlesford District Council said: “Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) is challenging the Secretary of State for Transport and is not challenging any steps taken by UDC in respect of this planning application. Manchester Airports Group has submitted a valid planning application and UDC is under a statutory duty to decide whether or not it should be approved.

“Far from 'rushing through the planning application', UDC has taken a great deal of care to ensure that the planning application is considered properly. It extended the usual public consultation period to make sure that everyone can have their say and it will be arranging special public speaking sessions so that local residents can express their views to the Planning Committee. We have also extended the usual time limit for making a decision to ensure that the Planning Committee has all the information it needs to assess this important application. We will, of course, pay careful heed to representations made by SSE in the same way that we will for other representations.

“As things stand, UDC has to make a decision on this planning application. This position might change if SSE’s legal action against the Secretary of State for Transport is successful but that is a matter for the Courts.”