Lexploria

Application No. 9310/81

Frederick William BAGGS

against

the UNITED KINGDOM

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 8 July 1987)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ................................. 1-2

PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ............ 3-4

PART II : SOLUTION REACHED .................. 5-6

&SINTRODUCTION&_

1. This Report relates to part of Application No. 9310/81

introduced by Frederick William Baggs against the United Kingdom on

31 December 1980 under Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ¹.

2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by Mr.

N.C. Walsh, Solicitor, Messrs. Blaker, Son and Young, Solicitors,

Lewes, and by the Federation of Heathrow Anti-Noise Groups.

3. The Government were represented before the Commission by

successive Agents: Mrs. A. Glover, Mr. M. Eaton and Mr. M.C. Wood, all

of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

4. On 16 October 1985 the European Commission of Human Rights

declared admissible the applicant's complaints that aircraft noise

nuisance "amounts to a violation of his rights under Article 8 of the

Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and that he has no

effective remedy before a national authority, within the meaning of

Article 13 of the Convention, to complain about aircraft noise

nuisance." The remainder of his part of the application was declared

inadmissible ².

5. The Commission then proceeded to carry out its task under

Article 28 of the Convention, which provides as follows: -

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition

referred to it :

(a) it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,

undertake together with the representatives of the parties an

examination of the petition and, if need be, an

investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States

concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities, after an

exchange of views with the Commission;

(b) it shall place itself at the disposal of the parties

concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of

the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as

defined in this Convention."

----------

¹ The part of the application introduced by the Federation of

Heathrow Anti-Noise Groups was declared inadmissible by the

Commission on 15 March 1984. The part of the application

introduced by two other individual applicants is still pending

before the Commission.

² This decision is public and can be obtained from the Commission's

Secretary.

6. The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly

settlement of the case and on 8 July 1987 it adopted this Report,

which, in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention, is confined to

a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.

7. The following members of the Commission were present when the

Report was adopted:

MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

G. TENEKIDES

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

A. WEITZEL

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

8. The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen, born in 1916. He

lives with his family at "Wood View", Spout Lane, Stanwell Moor,

Middlesex. He owns the freehold of the property comprising

approximately 1.4 acres. The property is used as the family residence

and for the applicant's business, market gardening and poultry

keeping. It was first leased by the applicant in 1943. He then

purchased the freehold in 1945 and built a bungalow on it in 1950.

9. The applicant's property is situated about a quarter of a mile

from the western end of Heathrow's southern runway (No. 5) at the

western side of the airport. The property is overflown by aircraft

half of the day. It is also overflown at night, since the southern

runway is generally used for night flying. It falls within a 72.5 NNI

contour ¹.

10. The applicant claimed that the aircraft noise levels at his

property vary from a minimum of 83 decibels to a maximum of 127

decibels. Certain measures, such as the double glazing insulation of

the house, have not resolved the noise and pollution problems, which

have been described as "appalling" and "intolerable" in various expert

----------

¹ NNI = Noise and Number Index, involving a combination of the

number of aircraft heard above a certain noise level, and

the average noise of aircraft to yield a single value. It

appears that in the United Kingdom the official criteria for

the control of housing development in areas affected by

aircraft noise, expressed in NNI values, are as follows:

60 NNI + above - development to be refused

40 - 50 NNI - no major new developments to be approved,

infilling only with appropriate sound

insulation

35 - 39 - development permission not to be refused

on noise grounds alone

reports, particularly as the Baggs family spend many hours outdoors

working. Heathrow Airport has undergone vast expansion since the

Baggs family moved to the district. The applicant was refused

planning permission to sell his property for commercial uses to enable

him to sell it at a reasonable price and buy a similar small holding

in a quieter area.

11. The applicant complained to the Commission of the noise and

vibration nuisances caused by Heathrow Airport and submitted that he

was a victim of a violation of his right to respect for his family

life and home, ensured by Article 8 of the Convention, and of his

property rights, ensured by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The

applicant also complained of a denial of access to court in the

determination of his civil rights and an absence of effective domestic

remedies, contrary to Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention respectively.

12. The application was introduced on 31 December 1980 and

registered on 23 March 1981. On 15 March 1984 the Commission decided

to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government

and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility

and merits of the case. The Government's observations were submitted

on 21 September 1984, to which the applicant replied on 18 February

1985.

13. On 13 May 1985 the Commission decided to hold a hearing on

that part of the application concerning Mr. Baggs' complaints. This

hearing was held on 16 October 1985, the applicant attending himself

and being represented by Mr. N.C. Walsh, Solicitor, Ms. F.J. Hampson,

Mr. N.A.C. Walsh and Mrs. Atlee, the Government being represented by

Mrs. A. Glover, Agent, Mr. N. Bratza, Counsel, Mr. G. Beatham, Mrs. P.

Dayer and Mr. P. Cowling.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

14. Following its decision on the admissibility of the part of the

application concerning the applicant, the Commission placed itself at

the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly

settlement, in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, and

invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.

15. In accordance with the usual practice the Commission's

Secretary contacted the parties and correspondence was exchanged

concerning possible proposals for a settlement.

16. On 29 September 1986 the Government informed the Commission of

legislative and administrative changes relevant to the case: The

Airports Act 1986 had received Royal Assent on 8 July 1986. It

provided for the dissolution of the British Airports Authority and the

transfer of its property, rights and liabilities to a public limited

company, Heathrow Airport Limited, with sufficient powers to enable

it, inter alia, to buy noise-blighted property near Heathrow Airport,

like that of Mr. Baggs. A "Scheme for the purchase of noise-blighted

properties close to Heathrow Airport" was drawn up providing for the

purchase by agreement of certain properties, including that of Mr.

Baggs, and, failing agreement on a price, providing for the

settlement of the price by independent arbitration. The Scheme was to

come into operation on 1 January 1987.

17. Further correspondence was then exchanged between the parties,

which correspondence included a claim from the applicant for

compensation and costs. Finally, the Secretary to the Commission

organised a meeting with the parties on 10 June 1987 in London.

18. At the meeting the parties reached an agreement, which they

confirmed in writing to the Commission. On 10 June 1987 the

Government's Agent, Mr. M.C. Wood, addressed the following letter to

the Commission: -

"I have the honour to refer to the discussions which were

held on 10 June concerning a friendly settlement of

Mr. Baggs' application.

The Government would first recall the "Scheme for the

purchase of noise-blighted properties close to Heathrow

Airport" determined by Heathrow Airport Limited, a copy

of which was enclosed with my letter to you of 6 January

1987. The Government are aware that a formal offer has

been made by Heathrow Airport Limited for the purchase,

under the Scheme, of Mr. Baggs' property.

Following the discussions on 10 June, the Government are

prepared to make an ex gratia payment of £ 24,000 to

Mr. Baggs in order to achieve a friendly settlement of

his application. This sum includes costs (and VAT thereon)."

19. On 16 June 1987 Mr. N.C. Walsh, on behalf of the applicant,

sent the following letter to the Commission: -

"Following the discussions which took place on

10 June concerning a friendly settlement to Mr. Baggs'

application, I write to confirm that Mr. Baggs will

accept a payment of £ 24,000 in full and final satisfaction

of his claim."

20. At its session on 8 July 1987 the Commission found from the

above letters that the parties had reached agreement on the terms of

a settlement. The Commission concluded, having regard to Article 28

(b) of the Convention, that a friendly settlement of this part of the

application had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights,

as defined in the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (J.A. FROWEIN)

Menu

BAGGS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

BAGGS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM