The airport was the operator liable for compensation. The apron was extended to allow for two more helicopters to be based at the airport, and a neighbouring householder claimed compensation for loss to the value of his house. The Secretary’s certificate was correct. The works were substantial alterations and the requirements of the section had been fulfilled, leaving the applicants entitled to compensation. S9(6)(b) does not require comparison of the numbers of aircraft actually using an aerodrome before and after the alterations, so that it does not require proof that the additions or alterations have led to additional aircraft in fact using the aerodrome.
Citations:
Gazette 22-Feb-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 144
Links:
Statutes:
Land Compensation Act 1973 9(6)(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Brunt and others v Southampton International Airport Ltd CA 7-Feb-2005
The claimants lived near Southampton Airport. The airport was altered to allow larger aircraft to use it, and they claimed damages for the increased noise and disturbance. Land had been acquired for additional parking. The number of aircraft flying . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147429