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)