Councils that brought legal challenge re. Heathrow say Londoners face added noise and long-term health impacts from Court decision
Date added: 2 May, 2019
Councils say the High Court’s failure to quash the government’s Airport National Policy Statement (ANPS) backing Heathrow expansion could bring long-term damage to the health of millions of Londoners. They warn that large areas of London and the Home Counties will be affected by noise from the new north-west runway. The court has refused all the applications for judicial review of the ANPS essentially because it has decided that at this policy stage the decision to support a third runway at Heathrow needs to only meet a low level of judicial scrutiny. All the damage caused to life and health and the environment by a third runway and its associated traffic (damage causing air pollution, noise pollution and contributing to climate change) will have to be more closely scrutinised at the DCO stage. Objections to a third runway must be heard then and any decision to approve it will be open to challenge through the courts. The councils will continue to explore every avenue possible to protect their residents from the health and environmental consequences of a third runway. Hillingdon “has set aside sufficient funding to defend our environment and the health and wellbeing of our people for however long it takes to do so.” See the comments of the Council Leaders.
.
Londoners face added noise and long-term health impacts from Heathrow decision
1st May 2019
Statement from the 5 local authorities that made a joint legal challenge to the NPS
Councils say the High Court’s failure to quash the government’s Airport National Policy Statement (ANPS) backing Heathrow expansion could bring long-term damage to the health of millions of Londoners.
They warn that large areas of London and the Home Counties will be affected by noise from the north-west runway. For many London boroughs it means a substantial increase in the number of communities affected.
The local authorities had argued that the third runway could only be built by demolishing thousands of homes, adding large increases in road traffic and making life noisier and unhealthier for millions of Londoners.
The court has refused all the applications for judicial review of the ANPS essentially because it has decided that at this policy stage the decision to support a third runway at Heathrow needs to only meet a low level of judicial scrutiny.
There will be another stage where the damage caused to life and health and the environment by a third runway and its associated traffic (damage causing air pollution, noise pollution and contributing to climate change) will be more closely scrutinised. Objections to a third runway must be heard then and any decision to approve it will be open to challenge through the courts.
The councils said today that they would continue to explore every avenue possible to protect their residents from the health and environmental consequences of a third runway.
Hillingdon Council Leader, Ray Puddifoot, said: “As I said at the start of this legal challenge this is just the first round in what would be a long fight that ultimately we would win. Whilst the court recognised the importance of people’s health and wellbeing caused by surface access, air quality and noise issues they accepted the Secretary of State for Transport’s argument that whilst there was no realistic solution to these issues at this time they could be dealt with at the next stage of the process (the Development Consent Order) and pointed out that should the Secretary of State grant a Development Consent Order it could be the subject of legal challenge on grounds of error of law.
“We remain convinced that the devastating consequences of the proposed expansion, which go far beyond the loss of over 1000 homes and 3750 blighted in Hillingdon should not have been put forward based on such a dangerous assumption. Whilst we await the view of our legal team on the next stage of this fight for the avoidance of doubt we have set aside sufficient funding to defend our environment and the health and wellbeing of our people for however long it takes to do so.”
Cllr Ravi Govindia, Leader of Wandsworth Council, said: “Today’s ruling is hugely disappointing for Londoners. It shows that the Government can drive through expansion plans without properly considering the full environmental and health impacts. But it does not mean the runway will ever be built. It still faces enormous legal obstacles particularly around air pollution.”
The councils say that any new runway would run a very high risk of breaching air quality limits and, unless air quality obligations can be satisfied, building and opening a third runway would be difficult.
The councils argue that no government could allow a runway to be built that would damage the health of 121,000 people in the area and contribute to thousands of premature deaths.
Cllr Gareth Roberts, Leader of Richmond Council, said: “This is not the end of the matter. We defeated a previous government on Heathrow back in 2010. We won then for our residents and we can win again in the future. A runway that breaches legal air quality limits simply cannot be built and opened. Nothing in today’s ruling changes that.
“The local authorities have fought a long battle to protect our communities from the airport’s relentless demand for growth. If democratically-elected councils won’t stand up for their residents’ interests and protect their quality of life – who will?”
Cllr Simon Dudley, Leader of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, added: “The underlying obstacles to this runway haven’t changed. Ministers kept communities across south and west London in the dark about whether they would be affected by noise.
“The flightpaths were drawn in such a way that the numbers of people affected were minimised. This meant the health and environmental costs of the north west runway were understated.
“The five local authorities which brought the challenge are all committed to defending the quality of life of local people. Few, if any, of our communities will escape noise and many will be affected seven days a week.”
Cllr Stephen Cowan, Leader of Hammersmith & Fulham Council, said: “Ministers may think they have done just enough by scraping through with this decision but that is hardly reassuring for the millions of people who will have to put up with a daily diet of increased noise and worsening air pollution.
“It means people can have no confidence that major infrastructure decisions which will affect the lives of current and future generations will ever be based on full and objective assessments of the consequences.
“People in this country deserve much more from their politicians. Warm words about protecting the environment for future generations will fool no one.”
The councils have pledged to maintain detailed scrutiny of all aspects of the airport’s planning application for the runway (Development Consent Order). This will include the detail of how the airport intends to meet its obligations in key areas such as noise, air quality and surface access. This detail will be subject to examination at the public inquiry stage with potential for further challenge in the courts.
The Secretary of State’s decision in favour of Heathrow’s north-west runway proposal was challenged by Hillingdon, Wandsworth, Hammersmith and Fulham, Richmond upon Thames and Windsor and Maidenhead councils. They were joined in the Judicial Review by the Mayor of London and Greenpeace.
Ends
.
Councils disappointed by court decision on Heathrow
1st May 2019
Press release from Wandsworth Borough Council
They warn that large areas of London and the Home Counties will be affected by noise from the north-west runway. For many London boroughs it means a substantial increase in the number of communities affected.
The local authorities had argued that the third runway could only be built by demolishing thousands of homes, adding large increases in road traffic and making life noisier and unhealthier for millions of Londoners.
The court has refused all the applications for judicial review of the ANPS essentially because it has decided that at this policy stage the decision to support a third runway at Heathrow needs only meet a low level of judicial scrutiny.
There will be another stage where the damage caused to life and health and the environment by a third runway and its associated traffic (damage causing air pollution, noise pollution and contributing to climate change) will be more closely scrutinised. Objections to runway three must be heard then and any decision to approve it will be open to challenge through the courts.
The councils said today that they would continue to explore every avenue possible to protect their residents from the health and environmental consequences of a third runway.
Cllr Ravi Govindia, Leader of Wandsworth Council, said: “Today’s ruling is hugely disappointing for Londoners. It shows that the Government can drive through expansion plans without properly considering the full environmental and health impacts. But it does not mean the runway will ever be built. It still faces enormous legal obstacles particularly around air pollution.”
The councils say that any new runway would run a very high risk of breaching air quality limits. There is still no evidence as to how air quality obligations can be satisfied. This makes it increasingly unlikely that a third runway could ever be built and opened.
The councils argue that no government could allow a runway to be built that would damage the health of 121,000 people in the area and contribute to thousands of premature deaths.
Cllr Gareth Roberts, Leader of Richmond Council, said: “This is not the end of the matter. We defeated a previous government on Heathrow back in 2010. We won then for our residents and we can win again in the future. A runway that breaches legal air quality limits simply cannot be built and opened. Nothing in today’s ruling changes that.
“The local authorities have fought a long battle to protect our communities from the airport’s relentless demand for growth. If democratically-elected councils won’t stand up for their residents’ interests and protect their quality of life – who will?”
Duncan Sharkey, Managing Director of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, added:“The underlying obstacles to this runway haven’t changed. The Government didn’t inform communities across south and west London about how they would be affected by noise and to what extent.
“The flightpaths were drawn in such a way that the numbers of people affected were minimised. This meant the health and environmental costs of the north west runway were understated.
“The five local authorities which brought the challenge are all committed to defending the quality of life of local people. Few, if any, of our communities will escape noise and many will be affected seven days a week.”
The councils have pledged to maintain detailed scrutiny of all aspects of the airport’s planning application for the runway (Development Consent Order). This will include the detail of how the airport intends to meet its obligations in key areas such as noise, air quality and surface access. This detail will be subject to examination at the public inquiry stage with potential for further challenge in the courts.
The Secretary of State’s decision in favour of Heathrow’s north-west runway proposal was challenged by Hillingdon, Wandsworth, Hammersmith and Fulham, Richmond upon Thames and Windsor and Maidenhead councils. They were joined in the Judicial Review by the Mayor of London and Greenpeace.
.
See also:
Judges reject judicial review challenges against DfT’s Heathrow 3rd runway NPS
May 1, 2019
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
May 1, 2019
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…
.
.
Posted: Thursday, May 2nd, 2019. Filed in General News, News about Airports, Recent News.
