R(Bristol Airport Action Network) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (expansion of Bristol Airport)

In February 2022, planning permission was granted for the expansion of Bristol Airport. The decision permitted an extra 2 million passengers per year, an increase of 20%. The decision was made on behalf of the Secretary of State by a panel of planning inspectors, and was challenged on public law grounds by a network of members of environmental organisations and of local residents. In January 2023, the High Court gave judgment, dismissing the claim, including the five climate-related grounds that were advanced: The panel did not err in its interpretation of local planning policies. It was entitled to conclude that these policies did not directly address aviation emissions. The panel’s reasoning was lawful. (Paragraphs 56 to 95.) Nor did the panel err in its interpretation of national policy on ‘Making best use of existing runways’, and its reasoning for this interpretation was lawful. The panel considered whether the predicted aviation emissions would have a material impact on the government's ability to meet its climate change targets and budgets. This was appropriate given the judgment in R(Goesa Ltd) v Eastleigh Borough Council [2002] EWHC 1221. (Paragraphs 96 to 121.) The panel did not err in its approach to paragraph 188 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Under that policy the focus of planning decisions should be on whether proposed development is an acceptable use of land, rather than on the control of emissions where these are subject to separate pollution control regimes. Paragraph 188 goes on to say that planning decisions should assume that these other regimes will operate effectively. When applying this policy the panel was entitled to treat the Climate Change Act 2008 as a "separate pollution control regime”. (Paragraphs 122 to 152.) The panel was entitled to give no weight to evidence that the increased emissions would consume a local carbon budget for the council area. It reached this conclusion on the ground that such budgets have no basis either in law or in policy. That was rational and lawful. (Paragraph 153 to 176.) Nor did the panel’s approach to the impact of non-CO2 emissions from aircraft breach the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017. The panel was entitled, in the exercise of its planning judgement, to refuse to make use of an official multiplier of 1.9 designed to take account of non-CO2 effects. On this the Climate Change Committee’s attitude was plainly of high relevance, and the Committee’s view was that non-CO2 emissions should not be included within the UK’s net zero target. Further, the developer’s environmental statement was lawful. There currently exist scientific uncertainties in assessing non-CO2 effects. It was open to those preparing the environmental statement to decide, as they did, to leave non-CO2 emissions to be dealt with until when the science enables them to be brought into account for the purposes of the Climate Change Act. As was the case in R(Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Heathrow Airport Limited [2020] UKSC 52, there was no "space" in the present case for the operation of the precautionary principle. (Paragraphs 177 to 198.) In May 2023, it was reported that the Court of Appeal had refused the claimant permission to appeal the High Court’s ruling, bringing the litigation to an end. In total, there were of six grounds that the Claimants brought up. The claimants also challenged the panel’s approach to impacts on a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) relating to horseshoe bats. The Claimants also challenged the panel’s approach to impacts on a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) relating to horseshoe bats and breed. The sixth ground was also dismissed.