CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 8 juillet 1987

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  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)