Perverse

Having waited through delay and further delay finally the Minister has made a decision over the Manston site. Far more than the decision it was important to finally get to see how all the evidence had been received by the Examiners, the report can be viewed here

Taking the decision first:
The decision deadline was delayed twice and the inspectors recommended refusal but on 9 July 2020, one day before the latest deadline, the Secretary of State for Transport (in fact, Minister of State Andrew Stephenson, because Grant Shapps had previously expressed support for the project), granted consent for the Manston Airport Development Consent Order.

Now a look at the ExA (Examining Authority) itself:

• Project: a primarily cargo airport near Ramsgate in east Kent;
• Promoter: RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd;
• Application made: 17 July 2018;
• Four inspectors, Kelvin MacDonald (his sixth), Martin Broderick (his sixth), Jon Hockley (his first), Jonathan Manning (his first);
• 2074 relevant representations, very high;
• 198 written representations, very high;
• 551 questions in the first round, high;
• two compulsory acquisition hearings, eight issue specific hearings and four open floor hearings – high;
• four Local Impact Reports, from Kent, Thanet, Dover and Canterbury;
• examination exactly six months, recommendation nine days over three months, decision nearly nine months, ie nearly six months late;
• 723 days from application to decision, just under two years, the third longest to get consent; and
• 2,005 documents on the Planning Inspectorate web page on the date of the decision (not including the relevant representations), very high.

Now a look at the report:

Written by Four inspectors, Kelvin MacDonald (his sixth), Martin Broderick (his sixth), Jon Hockley (his first), Jonathan Manning (his first)

Their conclusions

In conclusion

So it seems that a Minister who says:

Whilst noting the ExA’s consideration of need [ER 5] and conclusion that the Applicant’s failure to demonstrate sufficient need weighs substantially against the case for development consent being given [ER 8.2.25 - 8.2.26], the Secretary of State disagrees and concludes that there is a clear case of need for the Development which existing airports (Heathrow, Stansted, EMA and others able to handle freight) would not bring about to the same extent or at all.

The Secretary of State’s conclusions on the need for the Development are set out above in paragraphs 20 and 21 and, whilst noting the ExA’s view that the jobs created would not be to the same extent as forecast by the Applicant [ER 8.2.183], he concludes that significant economic and socio-economic benefits would flow from the Development to Thanet and East Kent as well as more widely including employment creation, benefits to general aviation and regeneration benefits. In reaching that view, the Secretary of State notes the ExA’s view that the Development may adversely affect the tourism industry in Ramsgate. Whilst he is sympathetic to any residents and business holders that may be affected, he also notes the ExA’s overall view that it would increase the attraction of tourists to other parts of Thanet and the wider East Kent area 

You can read the full justification in the decision letter

One might ask how 4 experienced Examiners could be so wrong. 

You might ask just what relevant experience  Andrew Stephenson brought to the decision making process. 

One might ask why two Conservative MP's have been so vocal in their support for an entity controlled in Panama, and why a Conservative Minister can overturn the conclusion of said experienced Examiners.

This decision feels so irrational that it should be assessed in the Courts at a Judicial Review

The courts may intervene to quash a decision where they consider it to be so demonstrably unreasonable as to be “irrational” or “perverse”. The test is whether a decision “is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it”. In practice this is very difficult to show, and it is usually argued alongside other grounds.