Evidence on air pollution, given to the High Court hearings on a 3rd Heathrow runway, by Neil Spurrier
Neil Spurrier, a solicitor from Teddington, made one of the 5 legal challenges against the Secretary of State for Transport’s decision to approve a 3rd Heathrow runway, through the Airports National Policy Statement. The legal hearings from the councils, the Mayor of London, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Plan B Earth and Mr Spurrier took place between the 15th and 19th March. There are transcripts of each day’s proceedings here. Neil addressed the issue of air pollution in particular, and the emissions of NO2 and particulates from planes themselves. He made important points, such as that air pollution is known to spread much, much further from an airport than the 2 km that the DfT has tried to use. Also that there is evidence of possible damage to the foetus from particulates found in placentas of people affected by air pollution, and that the government should not be risking the health of future generations. He made the point, on ultrafine particles, that merely because they have not been specifically studied (being part of the wider category of PM 2.5), is no reason for the government to discount them or consider their impact to be negative. The absence of evidence is not enough to avoid the precautionary principle. Read the full transcripts for details.
.
Tweet
The details of what Neil Spurrier said in his presentations to the Court, on 14th and 19th March – just on the subject of air pollution – are on this link.
Neil Spurrier on air pollution at High Court
Below are links to the transcripts of the first 7 days of the court hearings, dealing with the legal challenges by the Councils, Greenpeace and the Mayor of London; also Friends of the Earth; Plan B Earth; and Mr Neil Spurrier. The last 3 days of the hearings ( 20th, 21st and 22nd March) are devoted only to the Heathrow Hub legal challenge
Links to all the transcripts are at
The Court website says: “These transcripts have not been approved by the court.”
- Monday the 11th of March
- Tuesday the 12th of March
- Wednesday the 13th of March
- Thursday the 14th of March
- Friday the 15th of March
- Monday the 18th of March
- Tuesday the 19th of March
http://www.teddingtonactiongroup.com/2019/03/15/judicial-review-of-national-policy-statement-transcript-of-the-presentation-of-neil-spurrier/
Just a few extracts from Neil Spurrier’s presentation, are copied below:
But I would like to address you, my Lords, on the
emissions from the aircraft themselves.
It is, as I understand it, my Lords, the Secretary
of State’s case that they have little effect and,
indeed, Heathrow themselves have stated in meetings with
us that they don’t have effect.
============
Caroline Low, in her first witness statement, has also
confirmed this at paragraph 422. That is volume 4,
tab 1, page 173. In which she says:
“Where the AOS [Appraisal of Sustainability] provides estimates of population
affected by worse air quality, this is based on the
population within the 2-kilometre study area identified
by the Airports Commission.”
LORD JUSTICE HICKINBOTTOM: Yes.
MR SPURRIER: Now, I say that it is fundamentally wrong to
confine the study area for Heathrow expansion to
encompass just a 2-kilometre radius round the boundary
of the intended expanded airport.
The Secretary of State appears to make light of this
part of my claim. He says, in his skeleton argument,
that “much ink has been spilt” on this.
I am sorry, but I come back, my Lords, to say that
bad air quality, below the required legal standards,
spills a lot more than just ink.
===========
That is Caroline Low’s witness statement
and, at paragraph 14, page 311, Caroline Low says:
“As shown above, the concentration of pollutants
decreases quickly as you move away from the POE [and
that is point of emission, I imagine]. This effect is
so pointed that the search presented by DEFRA found that
aircraft emissions produced above 100 metres altitude
have almost no impact on the ground level concentration.
“Two thirds of emissions from the landing and take
off cycle occur above 100 metres, and therefore two
thirds of the aircraft emissions have a negligible
impact on human health.”
============
The date of this document is 2018 and it comes
out just slightly after the national policy statement.
But, my Lords, first of all, it is a government
document, so I would say that the contents must have
been known, certainly ought to have been known, prior to
the ANPS.
==========
The public law error, my Lord, is, firstly,
Heathrow operates in an area which is in breach of the
air quality regulations. The air quality in the London
boroughs — in none of the London boroughs, is my
understanding, is scheduled to comply until well after
- So, any increase in emissions is going to cause
a further breach of the law. We already have an
estimate, or a forecast, that if Heathrow is allowed to
expand there is an 80 per cent chance of there being
a further breach in 2026. High. Mr Jaffey addressed
you on that.
From what I am saying, my Lords, that 80 per cent
may be low because there is a whole area that simply has
not been assessed.
===========
Section 1.5, “Health
concerns”:
“ultrafine particles penetrate deep into the
respiratory system, allowing interactions with lung
tissue and potential translocation into the
bloodstream.”
I’ll mention, my Lords, that there is a report now
from Queen Mary’s Hospital, which shows that this
actually does happen.
“This together with the hypothesis that the toxicity
of particulate matter is governed by the surface area of
the particulates, rather than their mass, has led to
suggestions that ultrafine particles may be particularly
harmful to health.”
HEI, that is the Health Effects Institute 2013.
===========
Caroline Low, [DfT] at page 321,
paragraph 35:
“Mr Spurrier references research ‘endorsed’ by
DEFRA’s air quality expert group that appears to show
that dispersion of particulates occurs over a wide area
and that therefore the study area drawn from the air
quality modelling is too narrow.
“While DEFRA’s report does reference these studies,
it in no way endorses them. The research DEFRA
highlights is in respect of UFP, a form of particulate
matter emitted from aircraft. Unlike NOx and
particulate matter UFP are not currently the basis of
air quality legislation and are not the subject of air
quality modelling.
==========
DEFRA’s air quality
expert group in their latest report still maintain that
aviation emissions above 100 metres have little impact
on ground level concentrations.”
I have to say, my Lord, I have searched the DEFRA’s
air quality expert group report and I have found no
indication whatsoever of that last statement. Indeed,
the passage I have just read out to you shows that they
do have an effect.
I think my Lords, it was my friend Mr Crosland,
yesterday, who made the point — I think in connection
with climate change — that if you don’t know what the
answer is, the answer is not nought.
===========
but if I could take you to the abstracts because they do
show that these plane exhaust particulates spread at
least 20 kilometres and maybe even 40 kilometres
downwind.
============
“Over large areas downwind of LAX, [Los Angeles] concentrations of
pollutants other than PM were also elevated, figures
5(a) to (c) [and I will come to those in a minute] show
nearly indistinguishable spatial patterns of PM BC [that
is black carbon] and NO2 concentration measured
simultaneously at distances of 9.5 to 12 kilometres from
LAX. This suggests a common source for these
pollutants …”
The figures 5(a) to (c) are just above that. So,
here we have, my Lords, a study that is primarily on
particulates, but also did measure nitrogen dioxide,
which is clearly very much within the EU Regulations
2008 50.
===========
. The issues are, firstly, whether or not the
18 Secretary of State has adopted a rational approach and,
19 secondly, whether he has considered matters which he
20 ought to have considered.
21 In my submission, it is not rational to disregard
22 likely impacts that could have very long and harmful
23 consequences simply because they have not been
24 addressed.
============
21 If I may, I will clarify one point about the UFPs [ultrafine particles]
22 that was raised in my last submission. In the website
23 statement of the Queen Mary’s Hospital report on
24 particulates and the placentas of expectant mothers —
25 that is at volume 13, tab 8, page 99 — it is said that
1 as yet there is no specific evidence of the transfer of
2 particulates from the placenta to the foetus. However,
3 I would draw your Lordships’ attention to the statement
4 that there is actual harm done to the foetus directly
5 from the particulates that have made their way into the
6 placenta.
7 I refer my Lords to page 100, in volume 13, tab 8,
8 which says:
9 “We do not know whether the particles we found could
10 also move across into the foetus, but our evidence
11 suggests that this is indeed possible. We also know
12 that the particles do not need to get into the baby’s
13 body to have an adverse effect because if they have an
14 effect on the placenta, this will have a direct impact
15 on the foetus.”
===============
9 Just to remind us, my Lords, the principle is:
10 “Sustainable development can be summarised as
11 meeting the needs of the present without compromising
12 the ability of future generations to meet their own
13 needs.”
14 The Secretary of State is not having any regard to
15 the precautionary principle. Indeed, I would submit it
16 is more of a gung-ho principle. He has not acknowledged
17 my claim in respect of the particulates and nitrogen
18 dioxide being transmitted downwind from planes in the
19 air. I pleaded it in paragraph 38 of my statement. The
20 Secretary of State did not address that part of my
21 claim. I raised it in my skeleton argument, and again
22 it was not addressed.
==========
See more at
Neil Spurrier on air pollution at High Court