SSE seeks leave to appeal ‘confusing’ High Court decision
for an extra ten million passengers a year at Stansted Airport was legal.
of February. The wording of his judgment fails to provide the clarification which
Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) was looking for when it brought the case and so
SSE is seeking leave to appeal.
the extra 10 million passengers a year could compromise its case at any future
Public Inquiry to consider a second runway at Stansted. There were also wider
implications for planning decisions across the UK.
they were an unavoidable consequence of the Government’s policy to expand Stansted
Airport;
could be disregarded;
emissions, however substantial, could be disregarded in the decision to approve
the extra flights.
which would ensue from the expansion of Stansted is a legitimate consideration
to be taken into account during the decision-making process.
when the evidence suggests that the noise impacts were not properly taken into
account by the Government when reaching its decision to approve the extra 10 million
passengers a year at Stansted.
the Judge appears to agree with SSE that this should be taken into account in
the decision-making process but on the other hand he appears to be saying that
the trade deficit can be disregarded.
because it appears to mean that these wider environmental impacts of airport expansion
do not need to be taken into account when deciding whether planning permission
should be granted.
simply about winning or losing. Our primary concern was to ensure that our main
battle against a second Stansted runway was not prejudiced by the wording of the
original decision. However, today’s ruling seems to make matters even less clear
than they were before. That is why we are seeking leave to appeal."
or from
By Kevin Done, Aerospace Correspondent
passengers a year after an appeal against the expansion was defeated in the High
Court.
and airlines is poor, however, under a five-year price control regime for Stansted
announced separately on Friday by the Civil Aviation Authority. The new rules
are to be introduced next month.
of opposition from environmental groups, councils and residents.
had breached the law by failing to take full account of the environmental and
economic impact of allowing more flights.
criticisms of the way in which the planning inquiry inspector and the transport
department had handled the issues were "without substance".
and economic case for expansion of capacity from the single runway "remains strong".
single runway from 25m to 35m, while the number of flights to and from the airport
can be increased from 241,000 to 264,000.
in Europe, has been falling for more than a year. The number in the first two
months was 13.8 per cent lower than in the same period a year ago, and traffic
has been falling year-on-year for 16 months in succession. In the 12 months to
the end of February, Stansted handled 21.9m passengers.
over future ownership of the airport.
into the structure of BAA. It is expected to demand the break-up of the world’s
biggest airports operator – a subsidiary of Spain’s Ferrovial since 2006. The
commission is also likely to call for the sale of Gatwick, Stansted and Glasgow
or Edinburgh.
charges totalling up to £10m ($14m)a year to airlines if it failed to meet the
terms of a new service regime.
after it has presided over years of abysmal service at Stansted and its history
of rubber stamping cost increases for airports".
increase passenger numbers at Stansted.
Geoff Hoon made this decision were "
Government had not taken into account the
what does?
simply about winning or losing. Our primary concern was to ensure that our main
battle against a second Stansted runway was not prejudiced by the wording of the
original decision. However, today’s ruling seems to make matters even less clear
than they were before. That is why we are seeking leave to appeal."
being made. This is in the same week when we were warned:
The Amazon rainforest could shrink by 85% due to climate change Climate change could render half of the worlds inhabited areas unliveable ; and Scientists and economists warned that politicians hadn’t grasped the issue of climate change.
and his colleagues are
issue. Well I look forward to seeing this solution, but we need action from our
"leaders" if we’re going to make any headway.
back until after the Competition Commission reports on its recommendations which
will probably include a requirement for BAA to sell the airport.
STANSTED DECISION HERALDS UNTOLD ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) [1] reacted with dismay to the failure
this morning (Friday) of the High Court legal challenge to block expansion at
Stansted Airport.
The Government’s decision in principle to approve Heathrow’s third runway was
described as ‘driving a coach and horses’ through London’s green plans [2]. However,
today’s failure of the appeal against Stansted expansion goes much further as
it sets a precedent.
legal principles it raised about protection of the countryside. The legal action
challenged three aspects of the Government’s planning decision, which were that:
had to be ignored in order to carry out Government policy to increase flying;
on climate change;
impact on rural areas as domestic tourism provides a financial lifeline.
gas emissions. The Government can’t keep on relying on its outdated aviation
policy [3], which is damaging countryside, the climate and the economy. The recent
drop in passenger numbers travelling by air provides a perfect opportunity for
an urgent rethink.’