Heathrow campaigners granted Court hearing over third runway decision
in the High Court to rule on the campaigners’ complaints (1). In doing so the
Judge recognised the "significant public interest element to the case" as well
as the need for "clarification" of the Transport Secretary’s statement to Parliament
in January giving the green light to expansion (2).
the Heathrow flight paths, said, "We are delighted to get a court hearing. Once
again the Government has been put on the defensive over its controversial third
runway decision. Of course it is likely the Conservatives will scrap the plans
anyway if they win the next Election." (3)
will not be at all happy with this decision. It causes them to defend their controversial
and incoherent policies on Heathrow."
and substantive issues are considered at the same time.
Lord Adonis.
a Third Runway
Legal challenge launched against Government’s decision to back Heathrow 3rd runway
against the Government over its decision in January to give BAA permission to
draw up detailed plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport. The coalition
includes residents’ organisations NoTRAG (No Third Runway Action Group) and HACAN
as well as seven local councils and leading green groups (1).
its emissions target to tackle climate change;
it consulted on there should have been further consultation
"By bringing this Judicial Review, the courts will be able to give their judgement
on whether there should be a full consultation and whether the decision is compatible
with the government’s other legal obligations and policy statements."
last year it said that it would only give BAA the go-ahead to draw up plans for
expansion if it was confident that the EU legal limits on air pollution, due to
come into force in 2010, would not be breached. It also said that the size of
the area within the 57 decibel noise contour should be same as it was in 2002.
Already there are areas around Heathrow where air pollution exceeds the EU legal
limit. The claimants are arguing that the decision the Government made that the
introduction of cleaner and quieter planes will offset the noise and pollution
from a predicted 50% increase in flights is faulty and "irrational" in law.
by saying that it would limit the number of flights on the new runway if it appeared
that the noise, air pollution or emissions targets would be breached. The claimants
are arguing the, if the Government did limit the flights in this way, it would
mean that BAA may not be able to make money on its huge investment in the third
runway. Therefore, the claimants are arguing that this is an unrealistic and
flawed decision. And, in any case, it is so different from the proposals that
were consulted upon that there should have been a further consultation.
we are prepared to use every avenue open to us to save our communities from destruction.
We are fighting the Government in the courts and fighting to win."
was cobbled together at the last minute to keep a divided Cabinet happy. It is
little wonder it appears so open to a legal challenge."
(Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond
upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead) and Greenpeace, WWF-UK,
CPRE and RSPB.
Heathrow expansion protesters win legal challenge
7.8.2009 (Financial Times)
year after a High Court victory by a coalition of green groups, councils and local
residents.
must be held in open court because of the public interest element.
judicial review sought by protesters.
Hoon , the then transport secretary, giving his backing to the expansion.
by 2050. However, he later seemed to distance himself from the statement.
than others. But she added: “There are some areas in which clarification is desirable,
including the issue of the defendant’s statement to parliament.”
Heathrow decision is incompatible with the government’s climate change policy.
They believe that the third runway will contribute to higher emissions both from
aircraft and from a rise in “surface traffic” on roads surrounding the airport.
need to slash emissions and stop runaway climate change,” said John Sauven, executive
director of Greenpeace.
this week’s comments by Lord Adonis, who succeeded Mr Hoon in June, about high-speed
rail replacing large numbers of short-haul flights.
should take priority.
the decisions made on Heathrow in January.”
from 480,000 to 605,000 a year. Any more increases would depend on whether Britain
was on track to reduce its total aviation emissions.
expected to form the next government – are committed to scrapping the plans.
over his decision to back the expansion.
Johnson, the Tory mayor of London. But several business bodies are urging the
government to hold firm, arguing that Heathrow is close to full capacity and needs
to be larger to meet growing demand.
they claimed it would cause severe Tube overcrowding. Transport for London insiders
said the Piccadilly line could be thrown into chaos by demand from millions of
extra passengers a year and people could also be "pushed back into their cars".
In its first official statement on the Heathrow expansion, TfL accused ministers
of ignoring the problem. (Standard)
Against Heathrow Pollution
air pollution at Heathrow to breach European limits. Ministers have so far taken
no action to improve air quality of the area despite previously admitting that
NOx levels around the airport were above permitted levels. They know they are
breaking EU law and damaging the health of UK citizens yet they are still hell-bent
on building a 3rd runway, which will increase pollution. (eGov monitor)
imposed on the planned expansion of Heathrow. The GLA environment committee say measures
against the impact of a 3rd runway were not “fit for purpose”, and is concerned
no single authority would ensure BAA and airlines complied with pollution rules.
Murah Qureshi said “We would also question whether the suggested noise benchmark
is fit for purpose and if the aviation emissions targets are achievable.”
skew evidence in favour of expanding Heathrow and play down facts that could help
opponents. The government was so concerned about the content of internal emails
and memos about Heathrow expansion that it spent 18 months trying to prevent them
being revealed. BAA and the DfT relied on research that they knew would not stand
up to scrutiny – and they tried to remove evidence. (Times)