Stansted Airport NSL PCN - Is the PoFA 2012 "not relevant land" defence still vaild?

doubledotcom

That is a good post from @cooldude255220, but I believe there is a subtle legal misstep in the way the definitions are being chained together. The difficulty with that analysis is that it treats the definition of “aerodrome” in the Civil Aviation Act 1982 as a geographical limiter, when in fact it is a functional identifier, and then treats aerodrome charts as if they were determinative of statutory control, which they are not.

Section 63 of the Airports Act 1986 empowers an airport operator to make byelaws regulating conduct “while within the airport”. Section 82 then defines an airport as “the aggregate of the land, buildings and works comprised in an aerodrome within the meaning of the 1982 Act”.

That definition does not say “only land directly used for landing and take-off”. It says the aggregate of the land, buildings and works comprised in an aerodrome. The Civil Aviation Act definition of an aerodrome is not a land-use zoning tool; it is a licensing and operational definition that identifies what constitutes an aerodrome as an undertaking.

In other words, the aerodrome definition tells you what kind of undertaking you are dealing with, not how finely you carve up land within it.

If Parliament had intended airport byelaws to apply only to runways, aprons, taxiways and directly connected surfaces, it would have said so. Instead, it used deliberately broad language (“aggregate of the land, buildings and works”) precisely because an aerodrome is not just a strip of tarmac. It is an integrated system that necessarily includes landside infrastructure.

That is why airport byelaws routinely and expressly regulate matters such as:
– roads and traffic circulation
– parking and waiting
– obstruction
– behaviour of persons
– use of vehicles

None of those functions relate directly to the physical act of landing or taking off. Yet Parliament clearly envisaged them as falling within byelaw scope.

On NATS aerodrome charts specifically, their purpose is operational and safety-related. They are produced to support air traffic management, safeguarding, and aviation procedures. They are not statutory instruments, they are not made under the Airports Act, and they have no legal force in defining where byelaws apply.

The fact that some aerodrome charts show non-airside areas does not mean that the chart defines the outer legal limit of the aerodrome for byelaw purposes. Equally, the fact that a chart omits certain peripheral areas does not mean those areas fall outside statutory control. The charts are descriptive tools, not jurisdictional ones.

The “ultra vires” concern only arises if an airport operator purports to regulate land that is not part of the airport undertaking at all. But land does not cease to be part of the airport undertaking merely because:
– it is landside,
– it contains retail or parking facilities, or
– it is accessible to the public.

The real legal dividing line is not “airside vs non-airside”, nor “shown vs not shown on a NATS chart”. It is whether the land forms part of the airport undertaking and remains subject to the statutory framework governing the airport.

That is why planning documents, boundary plans, and the airport operator’s own representations to public authorities are relevant evidence. They identify what the airport itself says constitutes the airport. Aerodrome charts do not perform that function.

So, I believe the correct position is this:

NATS charts neither confer nor limit byelaw jurisdiction.
The aerodrome definition is not a narrow land-use filter.
Airport byelaws are intended to extend beyond airside into landside areas forming part of the airport undertaking.

Once that is understood (if necessary, by a judge), the analysis returns to the proper question: has any part of the airport land been expressly removed from statutory control by the state? If not, then the byelaws continue to apply, regardless of how the land is depicted on aviation charts.

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81849752#Comment_81849752

Thanks @doubledotcom, I appreciate your reply.

You say:

That definition does not say “only land directly used for landing and take-off”. It says the aggregate of the land, buildings and works comprised in an aerodrome. 

But the definition of an aerodrome in the Civil Aviation Act 1982 is similar to that:

any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft

Granted, 'affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft' is not exactly 'directly used for…' (but nor does it explicitly include ancillary uses, either).

I am in agreement though that Parliament surely intended that byelaws could covered a wider geographical area than that.

And I also agree that NATS charts are not determinative, but I think they are (or may be) useful where there is no definitive boundary.

It is whether the land forms part of the airport undertaking and remains subject to the statutory framework governing the airport.

I think we are almost in agreement here.

I think the question needs to be "to what land do the byelaws apply".

The best evidence of this is the land shown on the plan annexed to the byelaws. But there are a small handful of byelaws (including Stansted) which do not include such a plan.

In such cases, then the boundary needs to be determined some other way.

One argument is to say that by default, unless proven otherwise, the whole of the airport land is covered by byelaws and challenge the PPC to prove otherwise.

Other arguments might relate to signage etc.

On a personal note, I think it is crazy that airports have the power to create byelaws, but not have an obligation to publish a map showing exactly where they apply!

doubledotcom

I think we are actually aligned on where the burden of proof must lie.

In the absence of a definitive map annexed to the byelaws, the burden cannot sensibly fall on the motorist to prove that land is covered by byelaws. It must fall on the party asserting that it is not. If a claimant is insisting that a particular parcel of land is “relevant land” for PoFA purposes, then it is for them to prove that airport byelaws do not apply to it.

The only way they can do that, in law, is by showing either:
• that the land was never part of the airport when the byelaws were made, or
• that the byelaws which once applied to it have since been lawfully revoked or disapplied by statute.

Absent a boundary map annexed to the byelaws, the starting point has to be the scope of what the byelaws were made for: the airport. If the parcel of land was owned or controlled by the airport operator at the time the byelaws were made, then it formed part of the airport undertaking at that time. The byelaws applied to the airport as an undertaking, not to a selectively drawn subset of it.

Subsequent sale or redevelopment does not change that. Subordinate legislation does not quietly fall away because land is later transferred into private hands. Byelaws do not fragment by conveyancing. Once made, they continue to apply unless and until they are revoked, amended, or expressly disapplied by lawful authority.

So the default position is not “we don’t know, therefore PoFA applies”. The default position is that land which formed part of the airport when the byelaws were made remains subject to those byelaws unless there is evidence of statutory removal.

That is why a definitive boundary map is not legally necessary to reach a position. The byelaws apply to “the airport”. If the land was part of the airport estate when the byelaws were made, it was within their scope. If a claimant now wants to assert that the land is “relevant land”, they must prove that any byelaws which once applied to it have since been rescinded by statute.

They cannot do that. There is no statutory instrument disapplying the airport byelaws from that parcel of land. In those circumstances, the claimant’s assertion that the land is relevant is not supported by law.