Tension behind council’s Stansted Airport expansion refusal

When airport chiefs applied to increase passenger numbers from 35 to 43million a year in 2018, fears over an impact on climate change began to grow.

But Uttlesford District Council’s battle against the application ended last year after the High Court rejected its appeal. The journey was fraught with disunity between councillors and officers, with councillors voting against officer recommendations, and officers changing the position of the council at appeal without approval from elected members.

In its wake, an independent review by law firm Eversheds Sutherland, commissioned by the council into the handling of the application, alleged “political motivation” behind the decision to refuse, which was “without clear evidential justification”. The council is now grappling with legal costs estimated to be around £2.6m, according to a council report from October 2021.

In a statement from the time, a spokesperson for Stansted Airport said:, a spokesperson for Stansted Airport said: “It was regrettable that Uttlesford District Council allowed itself to be misled by environmental assertions that were not based in fact.”
Stansted Airport also said the development would not result in additional flights beyond those already allowed and that the council ignored its own legal advice when it reopened the application, which had already been approved.

A spokesperson for the council said in an October 2021 statement: “The chief executive’s recommendation to not appeal the Court’s decision is not reflective of any change in the council’s underlying feelings about the airport expansion, but is based instead on an objective analysis of the risks, implications, costs and likelihood of success in proceeding with an appeal.”

According to the review, the council was advised that if it did not have “a very good reason for changing its mind”, the airport would appeal and costs would likely be awarded against the council. The review says this advice was “entirely accurate”, and was either “not made available,” “not understood, ignored or dismissed by councillors”.

The authority’s senior councillor responsible for planning, John Evans (Residents for Uttlesford, Felsted and Stebbing), says a new action plan includes measures for improvement such as allowing officers to refer issues back to the planning committee, and ensuring records are made in future meetings with developers.

‘The poorest decision the council has ever made’

In November 2018, Uttlesford’s planning committee approved an application by Stansted Airport Ltd to build two taxiway links to the runway and nine aircraft stands, enabling 274,000 aircraft movements.
But in June 2019, after that year’s elections, the full council voted to refer the application back to the planning committee, asking it to consider “new material considerations”.

In January 2020 it was refused over potential effects on aircraft noise, air quality and climate change, in the backdrop of the government’s then-new 2050 net zero target.

Councillor Chris Criscione (Con, Flitch Green and Little Dunmow) was the only councillor to vote against reopening the application in 2019. Minutes from that meeting show he spoke about the potential for a legal battle, which Stansted was likely to win leaving the council with large costs.

He claimed to the LDRS that, while the issue is not party-political, it was politicised because the council was not pragmatic in its decision making.

He said: “The council has got into the habit of doing that, we ignore legal advice, we ignore officers’ advice, we ignore the independent report and just cast them aside as cannon fodder. But they’re absolutely not and that’s the gut-wrenching part.”

He continued to say councillors, who reopened the application against legal advice according to the review, and officers, who changed the position of the council at appeal without a democratic mandate, shared the blame.

Cllr Criscione said millions had been spent fighting the appeal and the biggest losers from the handling of the application are local residents. However, he believes the action plan will achieve a much-needed “cultural shift”.

He said: “That’s got to be our aim and our ambition now, because at the end of the day it doesn’t matter what political party we’re from, spending £3m on this has been the poorest decision the council has ever made.”

According to the council report from October last year, the council has incurred costs in the region of £2.6m to cover it’s own, the airport’s and the government’s legal bills.

‘A preposterous situation’

In July 2020, Stansted Airport appealed the council’s refusal. A public inquiry was held in January 2021, however the council’s position had been changed from refusal to approval with conditions.

The public inquiry ended in March 2021 and its result was issued May. Stansted won and was granted permission to expand by the inspector. Full costs were awarded against the council.

A claim for a Planning Statutory Review was refused by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE in October and the council voted to not contest this decision that month.
During the public inquiry, local campaign group Stansted Airport Watch (SAW), formerly Stop Stansted Expansion, was an official party to appeal.

“There was a lot of pressure from local residents to look at it again. They were angry and I’m still angry,” SAW chair Brian Ross told the LDRS.

“I feel the failure of dealing with this application wasn’t with the members, wasn’t with the councillors, it was with the officers,” he continued.

Speaking to the LDRS, Mr Ross points out that the legal position of the council during the appeal was changed from refusal to approval with conditions, without approval from elected councillors.

He said: “They pulled the rug from under everybody’s feet and even the inspector, even the barrister for MAG [Manchester Airports Group, Stansted’s parent company], said this was just a preposterous situation.”

Mr Ross branded the independent review as “offensive”, arguing it unfairly placed the blame for the handling of the application with councillors in the planning committee and noting decisions to reopen and refuse the application were cross-party and near-unanimous.

‘Nothing is ever predetermined’

Stansted Airport’s is not the only planning application which has caused problems for the council in recent years.
In February 2022, the council was designated, the equivalent of being placed in special measures, over the number of major applications overturned on appeal between 2018-2020. This means developers for major applications can now choose to apply directly to the government.

In June 2022, the council voted to offer Stansted Airport £1.4m to cover legal costs. According to a council report at the time, the authority was ordered to pay the airport’s costs as a result of losing the appeal.

The independent review written by law firm Evershed Sutherlands was published in July. Several councillors argued there was not enough evidence to reach its conclusions, partly because missing records from 40 out of 42 meetings between officers and the applicant. Evershed Sutherlands did not comment further on its report.

An action plan written by the council’s CEO Peter Holt was approved later that month.

Denied by many councillors, the accusation of “political motivation” made in Evershed Sutherland’s independent review is one of its most controversial parts.Planning committee chair Councillor Sandi Merifield (RfU, Felsted and Stebbing) told the LDRS: “I will defend the planning committee, that was never a political decision. That was a decision like every other decision we make as a planning committee.

“Nothing is ever predetermined, no decision is political, we go in there and we are individual members and we make decisions, as the evidence is in front of us on that day.”

However, despite disagreements with the review’s particulars, Cllr Merifield welcomed the Chief Executive’s action plan.

“I think in all reports there are things you can take away that are positive and things you can take away that you don’t like, but I think we have to take them and start working again,” she said.

After the 2019 election, in which Residents for Uttlesford took control of the council from the Conservatives, a review by the East of England Local Government Association was commissioned, which found “chronic underfunding” in skills and staff in the planning department.

According to Cllr Merifield, its recommendations have already started and include refreshing the senior management team and increasing public engagement.

She said: “There’s a lot of improvement that’s gone on within planning, so I think we are doing a good job.”

Cllr Evans said in a statement: “There are many positive lessons to learn from the independent review which the council commissioned following the Stansted Airport appeal and we are moving forward from this experience rather than looking backwards.”