Local farmer wins legal challenge on Carlisle airport expansion and freight distribution
Local farmer, Gordon Brown, who farms at Irthington close to Carlisle airport, has won another round in the long battle against the expansion of Carlisle Airport and its cargo distribution centre. The High Court judge, Mr Justice Collins, ruled that planners had failed to properly consider the viability of the plans. He allowed the challenge by Thomas Brown, and quashed the latest planning permission for a new freight storage and distribution facility at the airport. The judge said that Brown’s claim succeeded, though only on one ground, put forward by him – which was the failure by the council planners to consider the viability of the expansion plans properly. The decision was said to be borderline, and “by no means straight forward,” had taken years, and generated an “excessive” amount of paperwork. The latest round of the legal battle comes more than 3 years after Brown won a ruling from London’s Court of Appeal quashing the council’s previous grant of planning permission. Whether there will be an appeal against today’s ruling is not yet known.
.
Tweet
Farmer wins Carlise airport expansion legal challenge
24 March 2014 (Planning Resource)
A farmer has won a legal challenge against the expansion of Carlisle Airport after a judge ruled that planners had failed to properly consider the viability of the plans.
Mr Justice Collins allowed the challenge by Thomas Brown, from Irthington, and quashed the latest planning permission for a new freight storage and distribution facility at the airport.The judge said that Brown’s claim succeeded, though only on one ground, put forward by him. That was failure by the planners to properly consider the viability of the expansion plans.
In backing Brown the judge said that the decision allowing planning consent could only be justified if the planning committee was properly entitled to conclude that there was a reasonable prospect of achieving commercial use of the airport.
But he said that a key issue involving a subsidy was “not properly dealt with” by the planning committee.
He added: “Since anything which went to show that a commercial operation would not be likely to be feasible, even for a shorter period than forecast might have tipped the balance, that failure becomes more important.”
He said that he had to consider whether the short-comings in the “socio-economic considerations” sufficed to show that the decision could not stand.
He continued: “This was such a border line decision that any material defect is of greater importance than it might have been otherwise.”
The claim was, he said, “by no means straight forward” and had a substantial history which had “generated enormous amounts of paper” with more than 4,900 pages put before him. He branded that as “excessive.”
The latest round of the legal battle was heard in London last month came more than three years after Brown won a ruling from London’s Court of Appeal quashing the council’s previous grant of planning permission.
The planning decision under challenge was taken in February 2013, when the council granted a fresh permission for a freight distribution centre and the raising and re-profiling of the runway.
The permission was made subject to a section 106 agreement imposing an obligation on Stobart Air to keep the airport open and the runway maintained unless it could be shown that the airport is no longer economically viable.
Summarising the case at the start of the hearing, the judge said it amounted to a claim that the council had no power to enter into the agreement, that it doesn’t achieve what it was proposed to achieve, and that it was unlawful because it was done behind closed doors.
On the question of legal costs, which are expected to be high he said the parties were seeking to agree the issue of legal costs. He gave them until 27 March to put any submissions on that to him in writing.
Whether there will be an appeal against today’s ruling is not yet known.
R on the application of Brown v Carlisle City Council. Case Number: CO/4248/2013
.
Comment from an AirportWatch member :
Mr Brown must be judged a complete hero for 7 years of standing in the way of this application. His argument that ‘it was the wrong location for a regional distribution centre’ is right – Stobart’s sold their ‘alongside J44’ existing distribution centre site before they had got planning permission for their new one at the airport and then used the recklessness of that decision to extort the determination of a permission from the Council, despite the fact that the airport is stuck 5 miles up the A689.
.
Farmer who’s grounded Carlisle Airport plans says he’s fighting for equality
By Chris Story and Duncan Bick (Times and Star)
24 March 2014
A farmer whose legal challenge saw plans to revamp Carlisle Airport quashed says his battle has been one to ensure equality.
Gordon Brown
Gordon Brown argues Carlisle City Council must stick rigidly to rules with Stobart Group and its plans to overhaul the airfield.
A senior judge’s decision to kick out the latest redevelopment plans is the second that the Irthington farmer has successfully had through judicial review at the High Court.
The ruling is, however, unlikely to be the end of the long-running saga, with Stobart already planning to table another planning application.
Mr Brown, who lives opposite the airport, said it would be premature to comment on an application not already lodged. But he told the News & Star: “I don’t think Carlisle City Council should have one planning system for Stobart and another for the rest of us.”
The court ruling to reject the latest multi-million pound proposals has reignited fierce debate over the airport’s future.
In February last year, the council granted Stobart Group planning permission for a 394,000sq ft freight distribution centre and to resurface the runway in readiness for scheduled passenger flights.
Mr Justice Collins overturned that consent on the grounds of an objection put forward by Mr Brown that there was a defect in viability forecasts of the expansion plans.
He said the decision to grant planning consent could be justified only if the council’s development committee could conclude there was a reasonable prospect of achieving commercial use of the airport.
But a key issue involving a subsidy was “not properly dealt with” by the council’s planning committee, the judge ruled. He rejected the other grounds of appeal put forward, describing the decision made by the council as “borderline”.
Mr Brown doesn’t believe anyone is interested in developing the airport as an airport – describing such a move as “commercial suicide”. He described the judge’s ruling as “in line with expectation”, adding: “The main area of concern was that Carlisle City Council was misrepresenting the entire decision-making process.
“In this situation they took a decision which perhaps they felt was a politically expedient one, rather than one that was based on planning policy.”
Both the city council and Stobart were disappointed by the judge’s ruling.
The council has not said whether it intends to appeal. Stobart has, however, said it was “encouraged” that the “vast majority” of arguments put forward by Mr Brown were rejected, saying its plans would have created “huge opportunity” with a daily flight to Dublin – and via customs clearance in Dublin to the US – and two daily flights to London and the south east through London Southend Airport, which the transport giant also owns.
A spokeswoman said the company still believed a thriving Carlisle Lake District Airport would provide economic growth.
Support has already been voiced for the firm to make another bid at redevelopment.
Cumbria Tourism chairman Eric Robson said: “I think it’s a great shame but the heartening thing is that Stobart have now said they are going to retry. Given that all but one of Mr Brown’s points were thrown out, I am pretty certain that next time around it will get the approval. The benefits to Carlisle, the Lake District and the Scottish Borders would be tremendous, there is no doubt about that.”
He added that a connecting flight from Dublin would allow tourists from North America to clear customs before arriving in Cumbria, giving the county an opportunity to exploit that market.
In Irthington, near the airport, views on the airport redevelopment remain mixed. Giving her own view, parish council chairman Margaret Ogden said: “We are just happy that it has come to some sort of resolution.”
Stobart Group had argued that rental income from a freight distribution centre would turn around the fortunes of the loss-making airport.
Although there was the prospect of daily flights two aviation consultants – commissioned by the council and Mr Brown – cast doubt as to whether passenger services would be viable.
Stobart has a fall-back scheme in place in anticipation that the council might lose the judicial review proceedings. It secured planning permission in December to build 310,000sq ft of warehousing and 9,200sq ft of office accommodation at Kingmoor Park on the northern edge of Carlisle.
.
.
Earlier:
HIGH COURT VERDICT THROWS CARLISLE AIRPORT PLANS INTO DISARRAY
21 March 2014 (In Cumbria)
Stobart Group is to submit new plans for the development of Carlisle Airport despite a legal set back today.
Mr Justice Collins, one of the country’s most experienced planning judges, allowed the challenge by Gordon Brown, from Irthington and quashed the latest planning permission for a new freight storage and distribution facility at the airport.
The judge said that Mr Brown’s claim succeeded, though only on one ground put forward by him. That was failure by the planners to properly consider the viability of the expansion plans.
In backing Mr Brown, the judge said that the decision allowing planning consent could only be justified if the planning committee was properly entitled to conclude that there was a reasonable prospect of achieving commercial use of the airport.
But, he added, a key issue involving a subsidy was “not properly dealt with” by the planning committee.
He said that he had to consider whether the short-comings in the “socio-economic considerations” were sufficient to show that the decision could not stand.
He continued: “This was such a border line decision that any material defect is of greater importance than it might have been otherwise.”
The claim was, he said, “by no means straight forward” and had a substantial history which had “generated enormous amounts of paper” with more than 4,900 pages put before him. He branded that as “excessive.”
In a statement issued following the hearing, a Stobart Group spokesman said: “We are disappointed in what the court found was a borderline decision but obviously respect the court’s findings. However we are encouraged that the vast majority of Mr Brown’s arguments were rejected by the court.
“We have worked so hard to build a bigger and better Carlisle Lake District airport. Through our Stobart airline investment [formally Aer Arann, this week renamed as Stobart Air] our plans would have created a huge opportunity for the region.
“These plans included a daily flight to Dublin (and via customs clearance in Dublin, to the United States) and two daily flights to London and the South-East through our London Southend Airport. This would have been fantastic for the people of Carlisle and the surrounding region and would have allowed tourists from London and the South-East and the USA direct access to the Lake District, Carlisle and surrounding area.
“We still firmly believe that a thriving Carlisle Lake District airport will provide economic growth and jobs for the people of Carlisle and the surrounding area and to that end we intend to submit a new application taking into account today’s finding.”
http://www.in-cumbria.com/high-court-verdict-throws-carlisle-airport-plans-into-disarray-1.1124604
.
.
.
.
.
.