Here’s the first update from the Public Inquiry currently underway in Newport.
If you want to catch up with the story so far – you can read the first post. In short, this Public Inquiry is now looking at an appeal into refusal of a retrospective planning application for development of an aerodrome which could affect the Newport Wetlands and nearby Severn Estuary through disturbance.
So, the Inquiry finally got underway with ecological evidence from the appellant’s expert witness that flights from the airfield have not had an impact on the birds of the Newport Wetlands and the Severn estuary. On cross-examination, two key issues came out. He acknowledged the potential for aircraft to cause disturbance to birds, stating that without conditions, there is the potential for increasing use of the airfield to cause disturbance to birds. In addition he admitted that he had not personally seen aircraft from the disputed airfield over-flying the key sites (which they currently can, and on occasion, do) and the levels of disturbance that this causes.
Day one ended with Newport City Council building a case that that the appellant had failed to show that the development would not have a ‘likely significant effect’ on the important bird populations nearby. The term ‘likely significant effect’ is one of those critical terms that influence how planning matters affecting our most important wildlife sites (such as the Severn Special Protection Area) will go. If you can’t show that your proposal (or in this case your already built aerodrome) won’t have a likely significant effect, then this has specific consequences under the terms of the Nature Directives. In particular, whether there is a need to carry out an Appropriate Assessment, which is an analysis that will determine whether a plan or project will have an adverse effect.
The second day featured the appellant’s planning consultant, agreeing (under cross-examination) that an Appropriate Assessment was necessary. This helpful acknowledgement moved the focus of the Inquiry onto the conditions that would need to apply to the operation of the airfield to avoid the risk to birds – and whether these were adequate or enforceable.
With the RSPB’s expert witness about to take the stand the Inquiry was left with the question that the appellants’ suggested conditions might not provide enough certainty to ensure that there would be no adverse effect on the SPA.
Step forward Dr Tony Prater. Tony has worked for the RSPB for 30 years and prior to that established the Birds of Estuaries Inquiry that was set up in response to, amongst other things, the proposed third London Airport on Maplin Sands in the Thames. He is a leading authority on waterfowl and wetland conservation and played a key role in developing the Newport Wetlands reserve.
His evidence built the case that you could not safely say that there would be no adverse effect based on the inadequate data provided by the appellant. While conditions on the use of the airfield could ensure that the adverse effect is avoided, how enforceable and how reliable they are remains a key question for the Inquiry.
To be continued …