Airport operator accepts council offer of £2.1m to settle planning appeal costs

The move comes after the council decided to up its Part 36 offer earlier this month from £1.4m after STAL refused to settle.

Following the refusal, the local authority's chief executive, Peter Holt, recommended that the council give him the authority to make an offer of £2.05m, with the added option of making an "all-in-offer" of £2.1m.

Holt's offer also included an option to resolve the matter via mediation.

The report made by Holt’s stated that the council will have to dip into two separate reserves in order to make the payment.

A spokesperson for the council has now confirmed that it will pay the operator £2.1m.

The council noted: "The balance of this money – £1.1m – has been paid, on top of the £1m previously paid on account whilst negotiations continued.

It added: "An independent expert report into this broader matter has been commissioned, received and debated at full council, with lessons learned already being actioned for the future. With the outstanding costs now having been settled, the council reasonably considers this matter to be closed."

The background to the Part 36 offer was that STAL submitted on 22 February 2018 a planning application for works and to substantially extend passenger numbers (to 43 million a year).

That application was refused by the council's Planning Committee on 20 January 2020.

On 24 July 2020, STAL submitted an appeal against the committee's decision.

The Planning Inspectorate heard STAL's appeal over 30 days between 12 January and 12 March 2021. The inspectors found in STAL's favour by order dated 26 May 2021.

Uttlesford subsequently challenged the inspector's decision in the High Court, which was dismissed on 1 October 2021.

The council resolved on 6 October 2021 to accept the High Court's decision without seeking further leave to challenge "and to accept that this battle had ended", the chief executive's report noted.

STAL's legal costs of that High Court challenge were assessed by the Court and have been paid. However, payment by the authority of STAL's costs of the original planning appeal remained outstanding and it was those costs that were the subject of this report.

Adam Carey