Manchester Airport Case Study
(much of this material was originally prepared by the penelope project at Imperial College)
A) AIRPORTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
i) General Introduction
This case study examines the recent decision by the UK Government to allow the construction of a second runway at Manchester Airport. It looks at the process of environmental assessment and how it is applied in practice. The underlying reason why we have chosen this as our case study is that it illustrates the operation of the EA procedures against the background of a major controversial development. There are many examples of involvement in the decision making process at central and local Government level, a public inquiry, an Inspectors report, a detailed environmental assessment and many examples of public consultation. The case study is also appropriate as it is not the only recent airport development proposal in the UK. Apart from the decision to construct an additional runway at Manchester Airport there has also been much publicity concerning the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow Airport.
The construction of major infrastructure projects such as these has caused a great deal of controversy in the UK and is therefore also topical. The location of the new runway in Manchester became a protest site which was to attract a great deal of media attention for several months. To this date no case has been brought in the British Courts surrounding this development or the EA, but we believe that the inquiry's findings and the controversy surrounding this case would make an interesting case study.
ii) Issues involved
Air transport is the most rapidly growing mode of transport, both in the UK and globally. This growth in air traffic has been influenced by an increase in tourism, business travel and air freight. In the UK, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, an independent body consisting of science and policy experts with an advisory role to Government, recently undertook a study looking at the overall impact of transport policies1. As part of their study they examined the growth in air passenger traffic as it has affected the UK. They found that between 1982 and 1992 the number of passengers on non-scheduled flights increased by 62% and flights on international scheduled services to and from UK airports more than doubled.
Even though air travel has increased dramatically in recent years passenger demand forecast is still expected to continue to rise. The Department of the Transport in the UK forecast that the number of passengers passing through UK airports would increase by between 73% and 163% between 1992 and 2010. The Department of the Environment in the UK also produced a report in 1993 on runway capacity in the south east of England (RUCATSE Report2). This forecasts for the UK an increase from 106 million passengers per year in 1992 to between 183 and 280 million passengers per year in 2010. There had been no additional runways built in the UK for twenty years and because of this it was argued that a need existed for the expansion of Manchester Airport, situated in the North West of England. The number of passengers passing through Manchester Airport was 2.5 million in 1975 and this had risen to approximately 15 million in 1995. The Airport had only a single runway which meant that it was under pressure with the growth in flight numbers. It wanted to increase the capacity of the Airport from 15 million to 30 million passengers by 2005.
Aside from a significant increase in the number of flights the impact of airports on the environment has also increased dramatically over the last twenty years. Key environmental impacts of both flights and airports include loss of countryside, noise pollution, as well as emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases. In deciding whether to grant permission for the construction of the new runway there was a balance between the benefits which the new runway would bring to airlines and the local economy, against the environmental effects of the project in the decision making process.
This case study has wider significance because the construction of airports in European Community countries will potentially be one of the most debated and controversial environmental topics well into the next century. The growth of air transport and its environmental impact are major issues for all countries. The scale of the protest and political controversy concerning the expansion of Sydney Airport proves a good example of this. There have also been other recent airport development proposals in the EC at Amsterdam Schipol, Frankfurt, and Paris Charles de Gaulle. Other European countries may find that many of the same economic, environmental and ethical considerations that were raised in this case will have to be considered in the near future in the absence of firm EC guidelines.
Current European Union policy on air transport promotes free competition amongst airlines and airports in an attempt to meet forecast demand for air travel3. The UK's approach also leaves the market to decide where capacity is needed and they are "committed to enabling the development of additional airport capacity where this makes economic, social and environmental sense"4. These policies fail both to maximise the use of existing airport resources and to recognise the importance of environmental capacity constraints.
iii) location of developmentManchester Airport is situated nine miles south of Manchester City Centre, in the North-West of England. It is the third largest airport in the UK after Heathrow and Gatwick. The Airport is the seventh largest in Europe for international passengers.
The area of the new development is surrounded by countryside with much of the area covered by planning policies designed to inhibit creeping urbanisation (Green Belts) or land owned by the National Trust (a major conservation organisation). The area also has landscape and ecological value, and it well known for its ancient woodland.B) PRE-APPLICATION STAGE
(i) Formal Request to Local Authority
Manchester Airport PLC is a public limited company with shareholders consisting of surrounding local authorities. It formally applied for planning permission to build the new runway in 1993. They had constructed a new terminal in advance of the runway in 1987 in anticipation of receiving planning permission for the runway. The new terminal was built using what is known as permitted development rights, where Government regulations automatically grant planning permission for specified types of development. The developers in this case study did not need to undertake an EA under these permitted development rights. Following action by the European Commission in 1993 over inadequate implementation of the EC Directive, the UK Government removed permitted development rights from developments which fell within Schedule 1 of the 1988 Regulations and for Schedule 2 projects where the development was likely to have significant effects. Planning permission is now required for projects with automatic permitted development rights where an environmental assessment is required.
Before the formal planning permission is applied for in the UK there are a number of important procedures that may occur that can play a significant part in the project. The relevant implementing legislation concerning EA in England and Wales is the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations, which came into force on 15 July 1988. Regulation 4 of the 1988 Regulations states that the local planning authority may not grant planning permission unless they have first taken environmental information into consideration in relation to projects for which EA is required. It is therefore in the developer's own interest to find out before applying for planning permission, what effect, if any, EA may have on the project.
The developer may make a formal request to the local planning authority asking whether the project's likely environmental effects are sufficient to require an EA. The authority then has three weeks to give its opinion which they must support with reasons. This decision may be challenged by an appeal to the Secretary of State. The local planning authority's opinion is then placed on to a public register and the public have early notice of the proposed project before an environmental statement is published. For some projects the public may have notice of the proposed development many years in advance of the publication of the EA. However, the developer is not under any obligation to make a formal request to the local planning authority and if the local planning authority is not consulted about the project, early notice will not figure on the public register. In the UK, many developers are likely to produce an EA for major projects without consulting the local planning authority as to what schedule it falls under5.
In our case study the major shareholders in Manchester Airport were a consortium of local authorities and obviously were aware of whether an EA was required or not. The developers therefore carried out the EA without seeking a ruling on the need for one by competent Local Planning Authorities, and therefore early notice of the development was not placed on the public register.
(ii) Public Consultation
Although they were under no legal obligation to do so, the developers decided to consult and involve the public in the plan to build the new second runway at the earliest possible time, and before the formal application was made6. Four consultation exercises were carried out between 1991 and 1993, before the planning application was submitted to the local planning authority.
The developers first published a planning document entitled "Draft Development Strategy to 2005" which outlined their future policies, including the plans for the new runway. This extensive document (105 pages) was not meant to be a forerunner of the environmental statement and only dedicated eight pages to the environmental effects of the project. The crux of the report looked at subjects such as where the runway might be situated, capacity, operational area, economic impacts, operational and ancillary services, and ground transportation at the Airport. This and a summary leaflet were available for inspection by the public at the local planning authorities, citizens advice bureaux, local libraries and the Airport itself. They were sent to interested parties and the residents who might be affected by the development. The proposed development plans were also displayed at exhibitions near the affected areas, and discussed at eight public meetings organised by the developer. Approximately 200 to 300 people attended these meetings on average. A telephone inquiry line was also set up to enable people to express their concerns. The aircraft board considered the feedback received from this public consultation before officially announcing in December 1991 their intention to go ahead with the proposed second runway.
C) THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
(i) Introduction to EA in the UK
The preferred method of implementing the EC Directive in the UK was to incorporate EA requirements almost entirely into the existing land-use planning procedures. Essentially the land-use planning process is concerned with whether in principle the area is suitable for the project proposed. The information in the developer's "environmental statement" is simply taken into account by the local authority as part of the ordinary planning process and "assessment" refers to a process of decision making rather than a single document. In the UK there is only a limited amount of general guidance on the procedural and legal aspects of environmental assessment. There is likewise very little guidance on the methodology of assessing impact, or on the types of impact which any particular project might produce. A consequence of this is that most environmental assessments will be distinctive both as to the impacts they address and the way they are presented. In this case study the EA process is quite substantial because of the nature and size of the development and is relatively unique. There are however some aspects of the EA process which must take place, such as consultation etc.
(ii) The Schedule the project falls under
In 1992, Manchester Airport plc announced their intention to conduct a formal environmental assessment. The developers concluded that the runway was a project falling under the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. Projects falling within Schedule 1 of the Regulations must be the subject of mandatory environmental assessment, whereas projects falling within Schedule 2 of the Regulations only require environmental assessment where there are likely to be "significant environmental effects".
The developers deemed the second runway to be a "Schedule 2 project" under the 1988 Regulations. In Schedule 1 (number 7) an environmental assessment is required for the building of airports with runway lengths of 2,100 metres or more. The proposed second runway was 3,050 metres long. They decided it was a Schedule 2 project because they were only building a runway, not a new airport. There is general Government Guidance as to what is "significant environmental effects" and indicative criteria and thresholds contained in Circular 15/88. This Circular (Schedule 2, paragraph number 21) says that an EA is required under schedule 2 for "major works such as new runways." Although the circular has no legal force it is treated as if it is a legally binding document. Therefore, this project fell within the criteria for the requirement of environmental assessment under the 1988 Regulations. In practice, whether it was a Schedule 1 or 2 project made very little difference, since it was deemed significant enough to require EA.
(iii) Who undertook the assessment?
The EA for Manchester Airport was conducted jointly by external environmental consultants and with in house expertise provided by the developers . The EA team mainly consisted of a firm of environmental consultants who contracted a further team of sub-consultants to undertake the detailed environmental assessment. These sub-consultants were brought in as experts in their own environmental disciplines such as noise, water quality, ecology, air and landscapes. The EA team also included an engineering design team to look at the technical aspects of the runway and management consultants to oversee the project and its public relations exercises.
The scope of the EA was prepared by the Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA). The IEA is an independent, non-profit making organisation, dedicated to establishing reasonable best practice standards for EA. It is an initiative set up by environmental consultancies, industry and local authorities. The EA team brought in the IEA because of their expertise in this area and also because they are an independent body who could bring credibility to the process. This scoping exercise is not mandatory in the UK, although it is recommended as best practice EA. The scoping document was published for consultation. It can be viewed by clicking here . After the scoping document was produced the consultants, IEA, Manchester Airport plc, and the three local planning authorities concerned, all contributed to producing the input into the contents of the environmental statement. The EA for Manchester Airport proposal took fourteen months in total to complete.
(iv) Consultation in the EA process
In putting together the EA, developers are not only expected to consult local planning authorities; they must also seek views from the statutory consultees and in some cases non-statutory consultees. In most cases, the developer will discuss with the local planning authority the bodies with whom consultations should be undertaken. The developer is required in all cases under Regulation 8 of the 1988 Town and Country Planning Regulations to consult the statutory consultees. The statutory consultees should include those bodies which the local planning authority is required by Art 8 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 to consult on the determination of a planning application. These include, where appropriate, relevant Government Departments, English Heritage, English Nature, and the Environment Agency. The local planning authority can also ask for consultation with other relevant bodies, although this will only usually take place for larger developments.
The developer is given the responsibility of contacting the statutory consultees. The statutory consultees are under a duty to make available on request, any specialised information which they have, which is relevant in helping identify and assess the environmental effects to go in the environmental statement that is being prepared. This duty does not extend to them investigating environmental impacts, obtaining information not in their possession, or disclosing confidential material. A reasonable charge can be made for providing such information under Regulation 20 of the 1988 Regulations. The developer may also approach non-statutory consultees to assist in the provision of environmental information. Developers will usually do this where they offer some particular expertise or local insight. Non-statutory consultees can include environmental pressure groups, local amenity groups and members of the general public.
In the Manchester Airport Development there were eight statutory consultees and 67 non-statutory consultees. These bodies were consulted on the scoping brief for the EA. The width of the consultation usually depends on the size of the development proposed and in the case study we have chosen there was an obvious need to consult a wide spectrum of people because of the enormous implications of the project. The developers also believed that it was in their own interests to consult as many interested bodies as possible to ensure that all the issues had been addressed. They wanted to be seen to give everyone a chance to voice their opinion so that there were not delays or difficulties later in the planning process.
(v) Alternative Site Selection
There is no absolute requirement in the land use planning procedures that stipulates the need for a developer to undertake an environmental assessment at alternative sites. However, a developer is expected to give reasons on why the site in question was chosen for the development and why alternatives were not thought to be suitable. In practice the type and scale of the proposed development is relevant to whether alternative site selections are carried out. The decision on whether or not to carry out a site selection process is based upon the applicants assessment of the need to minimise and the possibility of mitigating the environmental impact when selecting the site. In assessing the suitability of a site the applicant will usually consider factors such as operational requirements, economic constraints, as well as the environmental effects of the development. The developer will usually address these criteria in the assessment and indicate how the particular site chosen usually strikes an acceptable balance. The effects on the environment and the mitigation measures envisaged will then be considered regarding the site the developer has chosen.
In this case study the developers EA Team reviewed the company's area of search in which the proposed development would take place. After environmental and engineering studies were undertaken they identified three possible locations where the runway might be situated. They then conducted a further comparative review on the environmental benefits and disbenefits of these three options. A further round of public consultation took place in early 1993 concerning the three different scheme options. The intention of this public consultation exercise was to receive views on the relative merits of the three proposed sites. A consultation brochure was produced and further exhibitions were held. A questionnaire was supplied to the people affected by the project to ask for their opinion on whether the development should go ahead, and which site they would prefer the runway to be situated on. Following this consultation the developers selected their preferred option (option 3A) which was developed and designed in more detail to form the basis of the scheme submitted for planning permission. The EA then formally took place and the environmental statement was written. The developers completed their environmental assessment in June 1993, and it in total cost a seven figure sum.
The Airport Board thought that the scheme they had chosen offered the least environmental impact, rather than the cheapest or one giving the greatest capacity. All of the consultees, and those that took part in the consultation exercises were notified of the decision. Although the protesters thought that the consultation exercise was quite good, they felt that they were not listened to in relation to which runway option to select . Many also felt that it was inevitable that the runway would be built with or without their input. Although alternative sites were considered, other alternative options were not addressed, not least because national airport policy does not enable alternatives such as other airports or rail to be considered against airport development.D) SUBMISSION TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
(i) Submission of the application to the Local Planning Authority
The developer has to formally submit the planning application with the environmental assessment to the local planning authority. As major projects such as airport developments frequently involve work taking place over a substantial area, it is not unusual for the project site to overlap an administrative boundary between two local planning authorities. Where this occurs the application will be submitted to both the authorities. The authorities will then usually decide amongst themselves who should be the lead authority, usually by reference to where the majority of the development will take place.
The developers in the Manchester Airport development submitted their planning application to Macclesfield Borough Council and Manchester City Council on the 16th July 1993. They submitted it to both the authorities because a little less than half of the 428 ha. application site lies within Manchester and the remainder in the Macclesfield Borough. The developers also submitted a Supporting Statement (16 pages) with the Planning Application which again gave a summary of the merits of the development.
The 1993 application for Runway Two was later superseded by a new application. This was because in the 1993 planning application, Manchester Airport were vague on whether a road affected by the development would be diverted or closed. Their representations to the public were made on the basis that the road would be diverted. It was decided that would be clearly unreasonable, as it would deprive those who might have wanted to make representations, about the road closure, the opportunity to do so. As a consequence Manchester Airport submitted a new application in 1994, in time to be considered at the inquiry. The new application gave those who wished to comment on the road closure the opportunity to do so.
(ii) Public Consultation
There are two main stages of public consultation in the application stage. The first stage of consultation takes place before the EA is submitted to the planning authority. The developer is required to allow the public to inspect the EA for 21 days before it is submitted with the planning application. If there are serious objections to the content of the EA from the public the Planning Authority may refuse to accept the application and stop the clock until they are satisfied with the EA. The second stage of public consultation occurs when the local planning authority receive the application. Representations must be made to the public and statutory consultees within 21 days of the application being received. The developer has to notify the statutory consultees of the planning application (if this is necessary) and they can comment on the environmental statement.
The developer also has to publish notices in the local press and post sites indicating when an environmental statement may be inspected and how copies may be obtained. Copies are normally available to view at the local planning authorities and libraries, or may be bought. Regulation 20 of the 1988 Town and Country Planning Regulation states that a reasonable number of copies of the environmental statement should be made available for sale to the public at a charge which reflects their printing and distribution costs.
There is no Government guidance on charging for environmental statements and there has been no case-law to test what is a reasonable charge. A consequence of this is that many developers have charged unreasonably high prices because the Government appears unwilling to take sanctions against them. The UK Regulations, also provide that a non-technical summary must also be produced as an aid to public consultation, though there is nothing in the Regulations that insist that it be published separately, nor that it should be free.
The environmental statement in this case study was a substantial volume of text. Manchester Airport published as part of the environmental assessment, a main text (A4, 292 pages), an appendix (A4, 614 pages), a volume of plans (A3, 97 pages) and a non-technical summary (A4, 10 pages). The whole set could be bought from the airport company at a cost of £70. In comparison to cost of other environmental statements produced in the UK this charge was reasonable. The copies of the non-technical summary were also freely distributed. The non-technical summary can be viewed by clicking here .
(iii) Decision Making Period
The determination period for a standard planning application is 8 weeks. When the planning application is accompanied with an environmental statement this period is increased and the planning authority will have 16 weeks to determine their decision on the application. This period may also be extended with the mutual consent of the developer. In practice, only approximately half of all submitted planning applications are determined within the statutory period. The average period before the planning authority usually makes their decision is around the 36 week mark, and almost a quarter of all applications take over a year to decide.
The developer is responsible for the information contained in the environmental statement. If the local authority disagrees with the information in the statement or considers it insufficient to allow them to make a proper assessment, Regulation 21 of the 1988 Town and Country Planning Regulations allows them to request further information. The delay in the determination period is usually caused by disagreements between the parties over the scope of the environmental assessment and the alleged impacts of the development. Where there has been proper consultation this should not happen - the Manchester Airport development is a good example of this, as they undertook prior consultation on the scope of the environmental assessment.
In coming to a decision, the planning authority must consider not only the planning application with the environmental statement, but any representations made by the statutory consultees or the public. The 1998 Town and Country Planning Regulations were amended in 1994 to require the local planning authority to make a written statement indicating that all the necessary information and submissions were provided, assessed in accordance with the Directive, and taken into account in the decision making process. In the Manchester Airport development the decision was not made by the local planning authority but was called in by the Secretary of State.
(iv) Call-In Procedure
The Secretary of State for the Environment has the legal power to call in any planning application to enable the decision to be taken at Government level, rather than by the local planning authority. Such planning applications usually occur when the proposed project does not fit into the local authority's Development Plan or because the application is of more than local significance or controversial. The Secretary of State for the Environment's call in policy was presented to Government in 1995:
"My general approach is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. I will therefore be very selective about calling-in applications to determine myself and will, in general, only take this step if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Each case must be considered on its individual merits. An application for development which raises significant architectural and urban design issues is one example of the type of case which may be of more than local importance. Other examples include cases which, in my opinion, could have wide effects beyond their immediate locality, which give rise to substantial regional or national controversy, which conflict with national policy on important matters, and those where the interests of foreign governments may be involved"7.
In practice a tiny proportion of planning applications are called in (well less than 1%). As most forms of airport development are controversial and are of more than local significance they are usually called in by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The planning application for the second runway at Manchester Airport was called in by the Secretary of State in October 1993 for this reason. The proposal for a new terminal (Terminal 5) at Heathrow Airport was also called in. Although the Secretary of State becomes the competent authority responsible for determining the application, the local planning authority will still provide him with input and will remain responsible for the day to day control of the development. When the Secretary of State calls in an application he will organise a public inquiry addressing the issues which he considers important.
(v) The Public Inquiry
The fundamental purpose of a planning inquiry is to enable the Secretary of State to make a decision on the planning application by providing him with a balanced view of the case. It also enables citizens closely affected by a scheme to put forward their arguments and express their opinions. The environmental assessment will play quite an important role in the inquiry, although it is not the sole basis for the planning decision and account must be taken of all planning considerations and not just the environment. Although the reason for the inquiry was primarily to see whether the runway development could go ahead, in examining this they also had to consider factors such as road diversions, compulsory purchase of houses, planning permission for support facilities such as taxiways, and a fire station etc.
An inquiry is similar to a court case, in that the different sides will argue for and against the project, although it is not supposed to be "over-judicialised". The Secretary of State will normally appoint an Inspector to conduct the inquiry. There is a professional core of civil servants who act as Inspectors for most inquiries (the Planning Inspectorate) although occasionally the Secretary of State appoints a leading lawyer or other independent figure. In this case the inquiry was held by an official from the Planning Inspectorate. The Inspector will assume the role of a judge and although they have a certain amount of discretion over how the inquiry is held, they are required to conduct the inquiry fairly with regard to the rights of parties to be heard. The parties at an inquiry will normally include: the applicant, the local planning authority, relevant Government Departments and other interested parties. The Secretary of State, or an Inspector acting for him, decides in advance who has a right to appear at the inquiry. In practice the majority of genuinely interested parties are given the chance to appear. Those entitled to appear may submit evidence and cross examine the other parties at the Inspectors discretion. A major disadvantage to members of the public in the inquiry process is the imbalance of resources between the developers and protesters. Many protesters cannot afford to pay for expensive lawyers and consultants in exceedingly lengthy hearings. It is also extremely difficult for the public to participate at inquiries as the majority work, and the inquiries usually take place during office hours. Some evening sessions may be arranged in some inquiries.
The public inquiry into the second runway at Manchester Airport took place between June 1994 and March 1995: a total of 9 months. The inquiry was exceedingly lengthy because of the large amount of documents submitted and witnesses called. In total 180 witnesses appeared and 14,000 written representations were made. The Department of the Environment introduced a Public Inquiry Secretariat to be responsible for the whole inquiry, and a library was set up to provide reference copies of the evidence of the inquiry for public inspection. This inquiry was also unique in that the protesters raised approximately a quarter of a million pounds to pay for top consultants and lawyers to represent them.
(vi) The Inspectors Report
After the inquiry has taken place the Inspector submits his report to the Secretary of State for the Environment. Applications are referred to the Secretary of State in accordance with directions issued under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Report includes the Inspectors conclusions and recommendations. The Inspector's conclusions may be seen by clicking here . The report is supposed to be unbiased and it must fairly and accurately present the principal arguments involved. The Inspector is given discretion to omit issues or arguments that he considers irrelevant, so that issues are presented to the Secretary of State in an intelligible manner.
The Inspector in the report concerning Manchester was kept free from other inquiries while he finished the work on the report. This was because of the sheer number of documents and evidence he had to include in his report. The completed report consisted of eight volumes of 1289 pages in total. This was sent to the Department of the Environment, North West Regional Office, for further consideration.
(vii) The decision taken by the Secretaries of State
The decision to grant the applications were taken jointly by the Secretaries of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Transport on the 15th January 1997, after consideration of the Inspectors Report. The Secretary of State for Transport commented that "the Secretary of State for the Environment and I, in considering the Inspector's recommendation to go ahead, had to balance the benefits which the new runway would bring to airlines and passengers against the environmental effects of the project. The Inspector considered that the overall package of the landscape and habitat mitigation package was impressive and we had no doubt that we should accept his recommendation for planning permission to be granted". It is quite uncommon for two ministers to decide on a planning application, although it has occurred for airport developments. This is because the proposals were made by a "relevant airport operator" within the meaning of Part V of the Airports Act 1986 and also because the Department of Transport gave evidence at the Inquiry.
(viii) Conditions Placed on the Development
When planning permission is granted it is quite common in the UK for the local planning authority to attach conditions which will regulate the development. Although the Secretary of State may be the competent authority in some instances in granting planning permission, conditions are always secured by the local planning authority. The local planning authority concerned in the application will usually seek an agreement to do this under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. A section 106 agreement can:
i) restrict the development or use of land in any specified way
ii) require specified operations or activities to be carried out in, on, under or over the land;
iii) require the land to be used in any specified way; or
iv) require a sum or sums to be paid to the authority on a specified date or dates or periodically.
In practice the environmental statement will address the impacts of the proposed project and set out mitigation measures for those impacts in the statement. This is often referred to as a mitigation package. The legal obligation to ensure that these mitigating measures are carried out is through the planning agreement under s106.
The developers of the second runway at Manchester Airport entered into s106 agreements with the competent authorities; Cheshire County Council (as they have responsibility for the highways) and Manchester City Council. This mitigation agreement was a comprehensive package of guarantees and environmental safeguards addressing issues such as the ultimate capacity of the airport, protection of the green belt, developing the public transport infrastructure, sound insulation and compensation schemes, and many other actions to control aircraft noise. The package in total contained over 100 points of agreement and 33 legally binding guarantees. The mitigation package can be seen be clicking here.E) PROTESTERS CRITICISMS
i) General Criticisms of the Project Itself
The Second runway at Manchester Airport attracted a great deal of opposition from the general public. Campaigns against the project started in the late 1980s when it was first proposed. The scheme was fiercely opposed by some local residents in affluent local towns and villages and was later the subject of attention by green campaigners. These were concerned with the increase in noise the extra runway would bring, a fall in house prices, and the repercussions on the environment in a designated green belt area noted for its natural beauty. Written representations concerning the development were made by 14,813 parties and a petition of 18,984 objectors was submitted to the Inquiry.
The location of the proposed runway became a protest site even before the Secretaries of State had made their decision. The protests followed on from earlier high profile green campaigns such as those at Newbury and Twyford Down, concerning road building. The Manchester protest site attracted an extraordinary amount of media attention in the UK. Environmental activists chained themselves into the top of trees in the historic wood and dug tunnels under the proposed runway site, with some even cementing themselves inside to avoid removal. The scale of the protest caught the public imagination and some protesters even became household names.
ii) Criticisms of the EA
The environmental statement prepared by the developers was criticised on three main points by the protesters. Firstly, the protesters thought that although the EA was very substantial and included a great deal of evidence they believed that it failed to address the environmental considerations which arose. They thought that the developers emphasised at great length the economic benefits to the region the airport would bring and underplayed the environmental considerations of the project.
The second criticism, which is closely connected to the first, was the protesters concerns of the secondary development which would take place with the expansion of the airport. The secondary developments which they believed would be associated with the runway project included things such as hotel and leisure facilities, warehousing and industry relocation. The protesters believed that these would clearly contribute to the environmental effects of the project. These associated developments were not included in the Airports development strategy, scoping brief or the environmental impact assessment itself. This was because the Airport considered that this was beyond their responsibility. The fact that there is no attempt to integrate environmental considerations such as these into the planning decision process is seen as a major weakness in the UK EA regime.
The third criticism of the EA and the proposed development was the mitigation package being offered by the Airport . As regards the environmental impacts, a major factor in the acceptance of the project had been the fact that the airport had promised a £17 million habitat mitigation package. The EA had revealed that the runway would destroy 3 woods and 571 acres of green belt countryside. The airport agreed to replant and restore more hedges and trees for each one lost. This decision was greeted with dismay by environmental groups who argued that the mitigation package set a dangerous precedent and the project should not occur as it was "potentially the most environmentally damaging development in the North West this century".
iii) Criticisms of the Inquiry
Although the protesters to the second runway at Manchester Airport raised a significant amount of money to challenge the planning application they still felt that they could not compete with the resources of the developer and as a result the scope and weight of evidence was severely disbalanced. The protesters could not in advance of the Inquiry match the quantity and depth of the Airport's evidence in its statement of case and the environmental assessment. The protesters therefore hoped to rely on the assessment and other evidence of the developer which would be presented before they submitted their evidence. However, the airport tactically insisted that the protesters had to also submit their evidence before the inquiry thus depriving them the right to use the information the Airport had collected. However, this did not prevent further supplementary evidence from being submitted during the inquiry. F) CHALLENGING A PLANNING DECISION
i) In the UK
There is an appeal mechanism in UK planning law under ss284 and 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that allows "persons aggrieved" by the decision a right to apply to the High Court to quash the decision. This appeal must be made within six weeks from the date of typing, signing and stamping of the Secretary of State's notification. The grounds of challenge are limited to arguments that the appeal was substantially or procedurally ultra vires. The appeal may also only be on a point of law, not on the merits of the planning application.
In the Manchester Airport dispute the protesters planned to appeal against the decision of the Secretaries of State. The lawyers acting for the protesters prepared a draft notice of motion to examine the merits of a statutory appeal to the High Court. This was eventually not submitted in time under the six week time limit imposed under ss284 and 288 above. Although, an appeal never took place in the UK courts the applicants were prepared to challenge the Secretaries of State decision on three grounds.
Firstly, the applicants argued that the Secretaries of State did not consider fairly the application to expand Liverpool Airport. The Liverpool airport proposal was introduced at approximately the same time as Manchester's and being in the North West of England as well, it was in direct competition. The Liverpool application was also subject to a public inquiry and inspectors report. The Secretaries of State decided not to hold a joint public inquiry to consider both of these applications together. The Secretaries of State decided not to allow the expansion of Liverpool Airport. The protesters claimed that the Secretaries of State reached their decision on the Liverpool project at the same time as the Manchester Runway decision, without having considered the report of the Inquiry Inspector. The applicants argued that this failure to consider the environmental impact of the proposals at Liverpool Airport breached the rules of natural justice.
The second argument put forward was that the project was in conflict with the Governments Development Plan. The Secretaries of State are obliged to make their decisions on the planning applications in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, by virtue of section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Development Plan identified the entire proposed development site as green belt. The Inspector concluded that the runway proposal conflicted with the Development Plan policies on ecology, listed buildings, noise, geology and landscape, and that it was in accordance with Development Plan policies on transport, economic development and employment. The Secretaries of State followed the Inspectors conclusions on the Development Plan Policy and made no observations in conflict with these conclusions. The protesters argued that it was unclear whether the Inspector and the Secretaries of State found that the proposal accorded with the Development Plan, a matter on which they were required to reach a decision. This challenge would therefore have been based on the premise that the Secretaries of States ignored a material consideration or failed to give adequate reasons for their decision.
The third line of argument was that the Inspector misinterpreted the planning guidance. The Inspector commented that the planning permission complied "so far as possible" with Government guidance. The protesters argued that this guidance was only applicable to development that had already been found to be justified in the green belt and that it was not material to a decision whether the development was justified in the Green Belt. The Secretaries of State did not dissociate themselves from this view and in the protesters opinion took into account an immaterial consideration in reaching their decision.
(ii) Challenging at European Community level
A local Council, affected by the Manchester runway proposal scheme (Moberley Parish Council) issued a complaint to the European Commission on the 11th June, 1997. The European Commission introduced the complaints procedure as a means of alerting it to potential breaches of any area of EC law. For individuals or non-governmental organisations the process has obvious attractions. No legal costs are involved nor is there a risk of a financial penalty should the allegation prove unfounded. The Commission has complete discretion whether or not to commence enforcement proceedings. However, according to a press release issued by the lawyers acting for the Council, the Commission has agreed to pursue an investigation in respect of this complaint.
The complaint was not on environmental considerations but is centred on the provision of state aid by local authorities to Manchester Airport. This aid was used as a form of subsidy to reduce charges in order to obtain business which might otherwise be attracted to rival airports. The Council have said that there is prima facie evidence that unlawful state aid of more than £200 million has been paid to the Airport. The lawyers for the Council have argued that the level of this state aid has distorted competition in the UK and Europe as it has enabled Manchester Airport PLC to expand the airport, construct the second runway, and offer reduced rates to attract larger airlines to the detriment of rival airports. The Commission is to investigate three allegations. The first is that their has been an alleged breach of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome which prohibits the distortion of competition by undertakings which directly or indirectly fix prices and trading conditions or impose obligations not in the nature of fair commercial custom or practice. The second investigation is into the UK Government's failure to transpose the Directive on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings. The third investigation is concerned with whether the tendering procedure for the construction of works has correctly complied with the public procurement rules.
1 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution - Eighteenth Report - Transport and the Environment (October 1994)
2 Department of Transport (1993) Runway Capacity to serve the South East (RUCATSE).
3 CEC (1992) The European Commission Communication on the Future Development of the Common Transport Policy: A Community Framework for Sustainable Mobility. COM (92) 494 final.
4 Dr Brian Mawhinney - Secretary of State for Transport (1995).
5 Sheate, W. (1996) Environmental Impact Assessment Law and Policy - Making an Impact II; Cameron May.
6 Ng., Y.C, & Sheate, W. (1997) Environmental impact assessment of airport developments in the United Kingdom and Hong Kong: who should participate, Project Appraisal, Volume 12, number 1.
7 Hansard HC Debates Cols. (26 January 1995) (314-315))