“Gatwick Obviously NOT” serves Judicial Review upon the CAA, on airspace change, with Gatwick Airport as an “Interested Party”
The relatively new campaign, “Gatwick Obviously NOT”, (GON) which was set up in response to changes to flight paths to the east of Gatwick airport during summer 2014, has served a Judicial Review upon the CAA, with Gatwick Airport Limited and the Secretary of State for Transport listed under the CAA as an ‘Interested Party’. The claim is being brought by Martin Baraud, the Chair of GON. The “Ground of Claim” is that there has indeed been a change in the use of airspace and that the CAA should first have consulted on such change before it was put into effect by GAL and NATS. To date no consultation has taken place and this whole procedure has been bypassed. GON wants proper consultation, and that a full airspace change process is carried out. They also want there to be no airspace changes by the CAA without approval by the Secretary of State. GON has already succeeded in raising over £100,000 and they will be fundraising further, for more legal costs.
.
Tweet
Gatwick Obviously NOT say:
9.3.2015
http://www.gatwickobviouslynot.org/
We can now advise that we have served a Judicial Review upon the CAA, with Gatwick Airport Limited listed under the CAA as an ‘Interested Party’.
See the Judicial Review documents on our website:
- Witness statement by Martin Barraud of GON:
View here (Acrobat PDF – 147kb) - Statement of Facts & Grounds:
View here (Acrobat PDF – 205kb)
Our Ground of Claim is that there has indeed been a change in the use of our airspace and that the CAA should first have consulted on such change before it was put into effect by GAL and NATS, and so that the Secretary of State can make the final decision as to whether it should be allowed. To date no consultation has taken place and this whole procedure has been bypassed.
We were tasked with raising substantial funds by our legal team and in our first phase of fundraising did exactly that, with over £100,000 pledged locally in 5 days – such is the widespread fury out here.
We need to double this figure to see us through and will be turning to Crowd Funding in due course.
However, we would hugely appreciate it if you could see your way to any donations now. Below are our details for paying on-line.
Our Ground of Claim is that there has indeed been a change in the use of our airspace and that the CAA should first have consulted on such change before it was put into effect by GAL and NATS, and so that the Secretary of State can make the final decision as to whether it should be allowed. To date no consultation has taken place and this whole procedure has been bypassed.
We were tasked with raising substantial funds by our legal team and in our first phase of fundraising did exactly that, with over £100,000 pledged locally in 5 days – such is the widespread fury out here.
We need to double this figure to see us through and will be turning to Crowd Funding in due course.
Yours, with thanks
Martin Barraud
www.gatwickobviouslynot.org
ask@gatwickobviouslynot.org
.
.
The legal documents are quite long, and in legal terminology. But see below:
Two paragraphs from the STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS:
3. The matter being challenged is the CAA’s failure to ensure that public consultation takes place in respect of an Airspace Change or Changes in the routing of aircraft arriving at Gatwick Airport. The term “Airspace Change” is used in this Statement of Facts and Grounds to mean a “change to the design or to the provision of airspace arrangements, or to the use made of them… including changes to air traffic control procedures, or to the provision of navigational aids or the use made of them in air navigation”, as per paragraph 9 of the Civil Aviation Authority (Air Navigation) Directions 2001 (incorporating Variation Direction 2004) (the “2001 Directions”).
4. The relevant Airspace Change(s) for the purposes of this claim consist in revised vectoring practices in relation to aircraft arriving at Gatwick (“vectoring” is explained below). These revised practices had been trialled at Gatwick on a temporary basis but appear to have been adopted recently on a long-term or permanent basis, resulting in a narrowing of the swathe within which arriving aircraft are established on the approach to Gatwick, and accordingly a concentration of flights over affected areas and increased disturbance from noise. The CAA has adopted a definition of an Airspace Change (as explained in its response to the Claimant’s Pre-Action Protocol Letter (“PAPL Response”) [p. ]), which is wrong in law. It has therefore erroneously understood that its duties under the 2001 Directions do not arise in respect of the relevant changes (“the matters complained of engage no relevant function of the CAA that gives rise to any decision for it to take”: PAPL Response para.23).
.
.
The Remedy sought, in the STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS:
Remedy
50. The Claimant seeks:
50.1. A declaration that the changes in question constitute an Airspace Change or Changes;
50.2. Alternatively, a mandatory order requiring the CAA to make a lawful decision (in accordance with the Court’s judgment on the legal principles to be applied) as to whether the changes in question are an Airspace Change or Changes;
50.3. In any event, a mandatory order requiring the CAA to:
a. Advise the Secretary of State pursuant to para.1(a) of the 2001 Directions;
b. Ensure that public consultation takes place pursuant to para.1(b)
and (c) of the 2001 Directions and section 9 of the Guidance; and
c. Carry out the full Airspace Change process pursuant to the 2001 Directions and the Guidance;
50.4. An order prohibiting the CAA from promulgating the changes without
having first secured the approval of the Secretary of State;
…. and more ….