Resident affected by Heathrow noise has given notice to seek Judicial Review against DfT re. runway
Neil Spurrier, a resident in Teddington, a member of the Teddington Action Group (TAG) has given notice that he is seeking a Judicial Review, in the event of Parliament voting in favour of the Airports NPS, to give consent to build a 3rd Heathrow runway. Teddington is already very badly affected by noise, when the airport is operating on easterlies. A 3rd runway would make the noise problem far worse. Neil’s letter to Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for Transport, says: “I am intending to bring a claim for Judicial Review should the National Policy Statement be put before Parliament and subsequently designated as a National Policy Statement in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act 2008.” The Matter being challenged is: “The Designation of the National Policy Statement of new runway capacity and infrastructure at airports in the South East of England and in particular the choice of Heathrow airport for expansion with a third runway. I would intend to ask the Court for an order declaring the National Policy Statement void through breaching existing laws and would ask for a prohibiting order prohibiting the continuation of the National Policy Statement or the granting of a Development Consent following the National Policy Statement.”
.
Tweet
The letter to the DfT says:
Dear Sir,
Airports National Policy Statement: new runway capacity and infrastructure at airports in the South East of England
I am writing to you as a member of the public affected by the above National Policy Statement and the proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport by the addition of a third runway. I am a member of a local residents’ group called the Teddington Action Group, formed in 2014 to afford people a voice in connection with the operations of Heathrow and opposing its proposed expansion.
This letter is written according to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Pre Action Protocol for Judicial Review applications.
I am intending to bring a claim for Judicial Review should the National Policy Statement be put before Parliament and subsequently designated as a National Policy Statement in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act 2008.
Matter being challenged
The Designation of the National Policy Statement of new runway capacity and infrastructure at airports in the South East of England and in particular the choice of Heathrow airport for expansion with a third runway. I would intend to ask the Court for an order declaring the National Policy Statement void through breaching existing laws and would ask for a prohibiting order prohibiting the continuation of the National Policy Statement or the granting of a Development Consent following the National Policy Statement.
The Issue
The Grounds for asking for an order declaring the National Policy Statement void through breaching existing laws and asking for a prohibiting order prohibiting the 3 continuation of the National Policy Statement or the granting of a Development Consent following the National Policy Statement are:
The National Policy Statement and Decision to recommend expansion of Heathrow:
1) Is biased, unjustifiably favours the Heathrow North West Runway, was presented to Parliament without disclosure of the full facts and does not contain the recommendations of Parliament through its Transport Committee
2) Will interfere with the use of our property as well as others their property through extra noise and pollution in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol European Convention on Human Rights
3) Will interfere with our family and private life through unwarranted noise and pollution in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
4) Will breach the provisions of EU Regulation 2008/50 by increasing the concentration of NO2 and poisonous particulates
5) Will breach the treaty obligations of the Kyoto Protocol, the provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008, and the obligations of the Paris Agreement by increasing the emission of greenhouse gases so that our treaty obligations will not be met
6) Will place an unjustifiable burden upon the public purse by pursuing a scheme that will require public funding when it should not require public funding and where there has been a representation that there will be no public funding
Details that I am asking the Secretary of State to take
Not to put the proposed National Policy Statement before Parliament and not to designate it as a National Policy Statement
and the full letter can be seen here