Free Traffic Legal Advice

Section E – Operator’s map and boundary claim

The operator’s “boundary” plan in Section E is not an airport estate boundary at all. It is a red-line taken from a High Court interim protest injunction that defines where protest-control measures apply for a limited legal purpose and period. The Order itself defines “Stansted Airport” only as “the land shown…on Plan 2 to the Claim Form,” and it includes review and service provisions (e.g. notices at locations marked “X”) that underline its narrow, enforcement nature. See:

https://www.stanstedairport.com/injunction/

This is not an operator boundary plan, does not purport to fix the airport’s statutory/operational extent, and is therefore irrelevant to the “relevant land” analysis under Schedule 4 PoFA.

By contrast, the appellant’s map is drawn from the airport operator’s own planning submission—the Stansted Terminal Extension Design & Access Statement (July 2023)—which describes the airport landholding and shows the site plan used by the operator and the planning authority to define the estate context (“the land within the airport’s boundaries is approximately 957 hectares”). This is precisely the type of authoritative operator material POPLA should prefer when understanding the airport boundary as a whole. Source:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf (page 8, ‘Site Plan’).

Accordingly, POPLA should dismiss the injunction red-line as a litigation exhibit with a limited purpose and no bearing on the airport estate’s full extent, and instead rely on the operator’s own planning document for boundary context. On that basis—and as shown in the appellant’s evidence—Southgate Park sits within the airport estate notwithstanding any narrower area delineated for protest-injunction enforcement.

Keeper liability (PoFA) cannot arise. Schedule 4 only applies on “relevant land”. Land subject to statutory control/byelaws (such as airport land within the operator’s boundary) is excluded from the definition of “relevant land”, so PoFA keeper liability is unavailable. The operator has not produced any operator or planning-authority boundary plan that displaces the airport operator’s own material; instead they rely on a protest-injunction map that is not a boundary instrument. POPLA should therefore find that this site is not “relevant land” and that the keeper cannot be held liable under Schedule 4 PoFA.

For ease of reference:

Operator’s injunction map – https://www.stanstedairport.com/injunction/

Appellant’s authoritative boundary/context map – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf

Subject: Formal Complaint – Material Error of Fact and Failure to Engage with Evidence (POPLA Ref: [insert reference])

To: POPLA Complaints Team

I am filing a formal complaint regarding the conduct and quality of adjudication in my POPLA appeal decision. This is not an attempt to reargue the merits, but to highlight clear service failings, factual errors, and a total failure to engage with the rebuttal evidence I provided.

1. The Assessor Ignored Core Rebuttal Evidence
In my rebuttal (Section E), I demonstrated that the operator’s “boundary” map was not an airport boundary plan but a High Court interim protest injunction map. The assessor’s decision entirely ignored this, falsely stating that it was a “map of the boundary of Airport Byelaws”.

The injunction map was never created to define the byelaws boundary. It simply defines land the airport company owns or controls for the limited purpose of an injunction against protestors. The decision shows that the assessor neither read nor understood my rebuttal.

I provided URLs for:

• The injunction map – https://www.stanstedairport.com/injunction/
• The airport operator’s official planning document (Design & Access Statement, July 2023) showing the true airport boundary (page 8 ‘Site Plan’) – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64d0fc30e5491a00134b5946/Design___Access_Statement_-_checked.pdf

The assessor’s reasoning does not mention or address these sources. Instead, they blindly accepted the operator’s irrelevant map and declared that the site “does not fall within land under statutory control”. That conclusion is factually wrong and legally indefensible.

2. The Assessor Misunderstood Ownership and Statutory Control
The reason Southgate Park is omitted from the injunction perimeter has nothing to do with the byelaws. The omission is due solely to ownership. The land is held by Tabacon Stansted 2 Limited (company no. 06408287), which holds the leasehold title EX22286 for “Plot 4B Southgate, Thremhall Avenue, London Stansted Airport”.

(Companies House record: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06408287/charges)
Tabacon’s own project record confirms it purchased 2 acres at Stansted from BAA in 2007 and let the drive-thru plots to McDonald’s in the South Gate Amenity Area (https://tabacon.webnode.page/projects/stansted-airport-mcdonalds-tabacon-stansted-ltd-and-tabacon-stansted-2-ltd-/).

Because the injunction can only bind land the claimant owns or controls, Southgate Park is excluded. However, the Stansted Airport Byelaws 1996 (https://assets.live.dxp.maginfrastructure.com/f/73114/x/46195467c9/stansted-byelaws.pdf) apply to all land within the defined byelaws boundary, irrespective of ownership.

The byelaws are a statutory instrument under the Airports Act 1986; they do not depend on who owns the land. The assessor failed to recognise this distinction and wrongly equated ownership with statutory control.

3. The Legal Consequence – Land Is Not “Relevant Land”
Under Schedule 4 Paragraph 3 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, “relevant land” excludes any land where parking is subject to statutory control, such as airport byelaws. Ownership is irrelevant; statutory control is decisive.

By accepting an injunction map as proof of exclusion from the byelaws, the assessor committed a material error of law and wrongly concluded that PoFA applies. Keeper liability cannot exist for parking alleged to occur on land within the Stansted Airport byelaws boundary.

4. Requested Actions
I therefore request that POPLA:

1. Conduct a service review for failure to engage with material rebuttal evidence and for misapplication of law.
2. Confirm whether any quality assurance or legal oversight occurred before the decision was issued.
3. Provide a written explanation of:

• Why a protest injunction map was treated as a byelaws boundary plan.
• Why the official airport operator planning document and byelaws were ignored.
• Why the assessor failed to understand the difference between ownership and statutory control.

4. Confirm the name of the assessor and reviewer responsible for this decision.

5. Summary
The assessor accepted an irrelevant document without scrutiny, ignored authoritative evidence, and reached a conclusion contrary to statutory definition and common sense. This represents a clear failure of competence, accuracy, and impartiality. The matter requires internal investigation and retraining to prevent repetition.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
[Address or POPLA Reference]

Thanks for this, but unfortunately I didn't see your reply yesterday and I paid the fine.  I found it all very stressful.