I have recently returned from a happy couple of weeks in the sunshine, watching TV reports of serious rain and flooding back home, then sitting in some pleasant beachside restaurant with the local special and a glass or two to numb my sorrow for those left at home. The journey began with my neighbour dropping us at the Falcon bus stop in Cullompton for the ride to Bristol Airport. We arrived early to give plenty of time for the horrors of security. Within 5 minutes of walking through the front door, we were airside and running the gauntlet of perfume sellers in duty free. We took off exactly on time for a very pleasant flight and a quite remarkable landing in Funchal, done with aplomb using a technique I was taught as an emergency measure. Coming home was similarly punctual, even with a tail wind to help us on our way. We were out of the airport and on the Falcon two hours ahead of our planned schedule, and back to our freezing home in excellent time. I saved a lot of money on gas, electricity and petrol while away and am planning next year's sojourn already with a month as the target. The hike to the departure gate aside, I found Bristol Airport to be in superb form.
Mr Justice Lane is obviously home from his winter hols too, and has handed down his Judgment in
Bristol Airport Action Network Co-ordinating Committee (acting through Stephen Clarke), Claimant, and Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Defendant. Unsurprisingly, he found for the Secretary of State. Remember that this case was not a retesting of the case for expansion of the airport, but a judicial review of the process used and implemented by the panel of inspectors at the Public Inquiry into the council's decision to refuse permission for the expansion. BAAN had lodged the case citing six grounds of challenge to the decision by the inspectors, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Levelling Housing and Communities. All of the grounds were dismissed by the judge, who held, in short, that they had done a perfectly good job on the review, and had come to conclusions that were entirely reasonable.
The claimant's lawyer has said he may advise an appeal. I would if I were him - you don't often get the chance to argue a case you know to be hopeless in the Court of Appeal, and there's good money in it.
You may recall my earlier utterances:
Like others, I think this decision will not survive an appeal and a public inquiry. The council went against their planning officer's recommendation, and wrote a rebuttal of his advice. Any appeal will be based on law and policy at the time the application was made, so any new limits subsequently introduced will have no bearing on it. If NSDC's reasons did not follow national policy, they will be overturned. I hope they didn't turn down the application simply to appease the protesters outside the town hall, knowing full well that an appeal would succeed and secretly looking forward to the increased business rates and the chance to blame the Tories, because that is not an efficient use of council tax money. It isn't unheard of - look at Bristol City Council and the MacDonalds in Fishponds.
and
I'll stick my neck out, not very far, and say that any legal action will be futile unless the inspector is found to have had a vested interest, which won't happen. There is a six-week window in which to apply for a judicial review. I think the action group is more likely than North Somerset DC▸ to seek judicial review, unless the council can be persuaded to risk throwing good money after bad. This appeal will have cost them a lot of their taxpayers' money, and they may yet have to pay the airport's costs too. A JR needn't cost them more than a teacher's salary for a year, unless they try to turn it into a re-run of the flawed arguments they used to refuse permission. Bristol Airport Action Network's representative has said the group will be speaking to a legal team about the decision. I am sure they will find one willing to take on the work, for a consideration.
I believe I was right on all counts. I will again stick my neck out, again with no fear of it being harmed, and say that if an appeal is lodged and is accepted for hearing in the Court of Appeal, it will fail, and it won't take as long to throw it out as the judicial review took. The appellant would have to show that the Honourable Mr Justice Lane, otherwise Sir Peter Richard Lane, erred in law or was conned. Both options appear to be vanishingly unlikely. I don't know if Mr Justice Lane is related to the late and famous (or infamous) Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, but he knows his stuff.
Click on the map to explore geographics
