All the claimants, whose challenges against the DfT on Heathrow expansion were rejected, now given leave to appeal
The Court of Appeal has granted the claimants against the Government’s plans to expand Heathrow permission to appeal their claims in a hearing beginning on 21 October 2019. The Government had argued permission should be refused. Lord Justice Lindblom stated: “The importance of the issues raised in these and related proceedings is obvious.” Four Councils (Wandsworth, Richmond, Hammersmith & Fulham, Windsor & Maidenhead) with Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Plan B Earth and the Mayor London sought the appeal, after judges at the High Court ruled against the legal challenges on 1st May. Rob Barnstone, of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, commented: “Boris Johnson knows that Heathrow expansion cannot meet environmental targets, including on noise and air pollution. Mr Johnson has indicated he will be following the legal and planning processes very carefully. Then at the appropriate time, the project can be cancelled. We don’t expect any gimmicks but remain confident that Mr Johnson will stop this disastrous project, albeit at the correct time in the process. The decision by the Court of Appeal today may make that time a little sooner than previously thought.” Heathrow Hub has also been given permission to appeal.
Heathrow third runway campaigners get High Court go-ahead
Campaigners against the expansion of Heathrow Airport have been given permission to challenge a High Court ruling over plans for a third runway.
Councils, residents, environmental charities and the mayor of London brought four separate judicial reviews of the Government’s decision to approve the plans.
The campaigners had their cases dismissed by two leading judges in May.
They were given the go-ahead to challenge that ruling on Monday.
During a two-week hearing in March they argued the plans would effectively create a “new airport” with the capacity of Gatwick and have “severe” consequences for Londoners.
Lord Justice Lindblom granted permission for a four-day hearing at the Court of Appeal in London, which will begin on 21 October.
Giving reasons for his decision, which he made based on case documents without a hearing, the judge said: “The importance of the issues raised in these and the related proceedings is obvious.”
The High Court case was brought against transport secretary Chris Grayling by local authorities and residents in London affected by the expansion, and charities including Greenpeace, Friends Of The Earth and Plan B.
The campaigners claimed the Government’s National Policy Statement setting out its support for the project failed to properly deal with the impact on air quality, climate change, noise and congestion.
Support from Labour MPs for the expansion helped push through the proposals to expand Europe’s busiest airport with a majority of 296 in a Commons vote in June last year.
Mr Grayling [Failing Grayling] said at the time the new runway would set a “clear path to our future as a global nation in the post-Brexit world”. Construction could begin in 2021, with the third runway operational by 2026.
HEATHROW COURT APPEAL GRANTED
22 July 2019
No 3rd Runway Coalition press release
The Court of Appeal has granted claimants against the Government’s plans to expand Heathrow permission to appeal their claims in a hearing beginning on 21 October 2019. The Government had argued permission should be refused. Lord Justice Lindblom stated:
“The importance of the issues raised in these and related proceedings is obvious. So too is the need for those issues to be finally resolved as swiftly as possible and with the least multiplication of costs.”
Reacting to the decision, Paul Beckford, Policy Director of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, said:
“We welcome the Court of Appeal’s recognition of the seriousness that the Heathrow expansion proposal brings. Our fight will continue to end the plans that would blight our environment and fall flat in the face of our climate emergency. We expect to win.”
Commenting ahead of the likely new prime minister taking office, Rob Barnstone, Coordinator of Stop Heathrow Expansion, said
“Boris Johnson knows that Heathrow expansion cannot meet environmental targets, including on noise and air pollution. Mr Johnson has indicated he will be following the legal and planning processes very carefully. Then at the appropriate time, the project can be cancelled. We don’t expect any gimmicks but remain confident that Mr Johnson will stop this disastrous project, albeit at the correct time in the process. The decision by the Court of Appeal today may make that time a little sooner than previously thought.”
The judgment can be found here: https://planb.earth/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Permission-to-Appeal-Order.pdf
For more information, contact Paul Beckford on firstname.lastname@example.org
Hillingdon and the other 4 Councils seek permission to appeal Heathrow ruling
Following the Divisional Court’s decision on 1 May 2019 to dismiss the legal challenge brought by Hillingdon Council and others, expert legal opinion has been sought by them in relation to whether there are any grounds to appeal this decision. There is no automatic right of appeal and permission to appeal is needed, in the first instance, from the court which heard the legal challenge. Therefore, an application for permission to appeal is being made to the Divisional Court on behalf of Hillingdon Council and the other local authorities involved in the legal challenge (Wandsworth, Richmond, Hammersmith & Fulham, Windsor & Maidenhead) – it will be supported by Greenpeace and the Mayor of London. The appeal is on 2 specific grounds which both have their origin in European Law. 1). Relating to the Habitats Directive, and 2). the relationship of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) to the councils’ Local Plans, and the noise assessment and metric used by the government, under the SEA Directive. If the Divisional Court refuses the application, the councils can apply for permission to appeal directly to the Court of Appeal. Plan B and Friends of the Earth are also appealing, on different grounds. The councils have always known this would be a long slog …
Click here to view full story…
Plan B to appeal against the Court’s judgment rejecting the Heathrow legal challenges
Plan B Earth is to Appeal against the decision of the Judges, on 1st May, to reject the legal challenges by the five councils etc, by Friends of the Earth, Plan B Earth, and Mr Paul Spurrier (as well as Heathrow Hub). Plan B Earth has published its application for permission to appeal against the judgment of Hickinbottom LJ and Holgate J . “The Appellant wishes to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision … to designate the Airports National Policy Statement (“the ANPS”) in support of the expansion of Heathrow Airport under the Planning Act 2008 (“the 2008 Act”), on the basis of his failure to give proper consideration to the climate change impacts of the proposal. Plan B mention specific errors, including that the “Court erred in law in treating the minimum target of 80% greenhouse gas emissions reduction by 2050, established by the Climate Change Act 2008 (“CCA”) as precluding Government policy which implied emissions reduction of greater than 80%: The Court proceeded on the basis that “Government policy relating to … climate change” could not differ at all (or at least could not differ materially) from the base level of the emissions target set out in the CCA. That approach is fundamentally flawed.”
Click here to view full story…
Judges reject judicial review challenges against DfT’s Heathrow 3rd runway NPS
The judges at the High Court have handed down their judgement, which was to reject all the legal challenges against the DfT and the Secretary of State for Transport, on the government decision to approve a 3rd Heathrow runway, through the Airports NPS (National Policy Statement). The judges chose to make their ruling exclusively on the legality, and “rationality” of the DfT decision, ignoring the facts and details of the Heathrow scheme and the NPS process – or the areas where relevant information was ignored by the DfT. In the view of the judges, the process had been conducted legally. They threw out challenges on air pollution, surface access, noise and habitats – as well as carbon emissions. The latter being on the grounds that the Paris Agreement, though ratified by the UK government, has not been incorporated into UK law, so the DfT did not have to consider it. The Paris Agreement requires countries to aim for only a global 1.5C rise in temperature, not 2 degrees (as in the current UK Climate Change Act). Read comments by Neil Spurrier, one of those making a legal challenge. There are now likely to be appeals, perhaps even direct to the Supreme Court.
Click here to view full story…
Comment by Plan B Earth and Extinction Rebellion, on Judges’ rejection of Heathrow legal challenges
The High Court dismissed all the legal challenges to the Government’s plans to expand Heathrow, including the claims brought by Friends of the Earth and Plan B on the grounds of inconsistency with the Paris Agreement on climate change. Tim Crosland, Director of Plan B and a legal adviser to Extinction Rebellion, said: “…it is increasingly difficult to see how the Government’s reckless plans to expand Heathrow Airport can proceed. Following the recent Extinction Rebellion protests there is widespread recognition that we are in a state of climate and ecological emergency. The Court has upheld Chris Grayling’s surprising contention that the Paris Agreement is “irrelevant” to Government policy on climate change. It ignored the fact that the Government stated in May last year that it planned to decarbonise the economy by 2050. Instead it accepted Grayling’s argument that the CCC considers the current target of 80% emissions reductions by 2050 to be consistent with the Paris Agreement. Tomorrow the CCC is expected to expose the fallacy of that position by recommending that the Government implement a target of net zero by 2050,… Since that recommendation is obviously inconsistent with the expansion of Heathrow, presumably the plans will now need to be reviewed.”
Click here to view full story…