Heathrow expansion abandoned by government – which will not appeal court ruling that NPS was illegal

Heathrow expansion is now very unlikely, after the ruling by the Appeal Court that the government’s approval of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) was unlawful.  Pushed through by Chris Grayling, as Secretary of State for Transport, it failed to take into account the UK’s climate change commitments. Lords Justice Lindblom, Singh and Haddon-Cave ruled the government did not take enough account of its commitment to the Paris Agreement on climate change when setting out its support for the proposals in its ANPS.  The government should have given an explanation about how it was taken into account, but it did not. The UN’s Paris Agreement, which came into force in November 2016, commits signatories to take measures to limit global warming to well below 2C. The government saw the ruling last week, and could have appealed to the Supreme Court, but has decided not to do so.  This instruction will have come from Boris Johnson, not only Grant Shapps.  Shapps said:  “We will set out our next steps in due course.”  It has become increasingly clear that the Heathrow runway could not pass necessary standards on noise, carbon, cost or air pollution. The legal judgement should be the final nail in its coffin.
.

 

 

Heathrow expansion abandoned by government as Boris Johnson spokesman says it will not appeal court ruling

Judgement set to give prime minister – and avowed opponent – a convenient exit route from the scheme

By Rob Merrick @Rob_Merrick,
Ashley Cowburn @ashcowburn (The Independent)

Lord Justice Lindblom

 

27.2.2020

Heathrow expansion looks doomed after the government announced it would not challenge a devastating court ruling against the controversial project.

The judgement – that the third runway is “unlawful” by failing to take into account the UK’s climate change commitments – now looks likely to give Boris Johnson a convenient exit route from the scheme.

Asked whether the government would appeal the decision, the prime minister’s spokesman replied: “It is not.”

Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, is expected to set out the detailed reasons for ministers giving up in interviews later today

However, the saga is not over, because Heathrow Airport announced it would mount an appeal – despite not being a party to the Court of Appeal case.

“We will appeal to the Supreme Court on this one issue and are confident that we will be successful. In the meantime, we are ready to work with the government to fix the issue that the court has raised,” a Heathrow spokesperson said.

No 10’s decision confirms suspicions that Mr Johnson – who once vowed to “lie down” in front of bulldozers to stop a third runway – could use a defeat to abandon expansion altogether.

In recent weeks, he had suggested the project would be stopped by the courts, telling MPs this month: “I see no bulldozers at present and no immediate prospect of them arriving.”

And he is known to rage at criticism that he fails to stick to his promises – and be conscious that diggers moving into Heathrow would be the ultimate symbol of a broken pledge.

Friends of the Earth hailed the ruling as “an absolutely ground-breaking result for climate justice”, adding: “We were fighting a project that would have had dire implications for present and future generations.

And Greenpeace predicted defeat for Heathrow’s appeal, saying: “The third runway is already on its knees over costs, noise, air pollution, habitat loss and lack of access, and now Heathrow Ltd has yet another impossibly high hurdle to clear.”

The landmark decision is first time any government has been held to account over the Paris Accord, said Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, assistant professor of public international law at Leiden University, in The Netherlands.

The Court of Appeal said that in future, a third runway at Heathrow could go ahead – but only if it fitted with the UK’s commitment under the Paris Agreement, which seeks to limit global heating.

The judges found that the government had not followed that policy when backing the expansion plans two years ago.

It was “legally fatal” to Heathrow expansion that it did not take those climate commitments into account, they said.

That raises huge questions over trying to expand another airport, such as Gatwick or Birmingham – and has implications for all huge infrastructure projects.

Mr Shapps tweeted: “Airport expansion is core to boosting global connectivity. We also take seriously our commitment to the environment.

“This govt won’t appeal today’s judgement given our manifesto makes clear any Heathrow expansion will be industry led.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/heathrow-expansion-boris-johnson-court-of-appeal-ruling-third-runway-a9362786.html

.

Grant Shapps comment (see below for full comment):

The government has taken the decision not to appeal this judgment. The promoters of the scheme will be able to seek permission from the Supreme Court to appeal if they wish.

As part of its judgment, the court has declared that the Airports National Policy Statement is of no legal effect unless and until the government carries out a review under the Planning Act 2008.

The court’s judgment is complex and requires careful consideration. We will set out our next steps in due course.

.

 


HEATHROW EXPANSION BLOCKED BY COURT OF APPEAL IN VICTORY FOR CLIMATE CAMPAIGNERS

Environmental groups hail ‘absolutely ground-breaking result for climate justice’

By Qin Xie  @qinxiesays   and Chris Baynes  (The Independent)

27.2.2020

The expansion of Heathrow airport has been ruled unlawful by the Court of Appeal in a victory for climate campaigners fighting to block controversial plans for a third runway.

Judges concluded the government’s decision to permit the expansion of the UK’s busiest airport was illegal because ministers did not take into account the impact on the country’s commitment to tackle global warming.

Heathrow is expected to challenge Thursday’s ruling, but the government has not lodged an appeal and campaigners said they hoped Boris Johnson would abandon the project.

Legal action had been brought by a group of councils in London affected by the expansion, environmental charities including Greenpeace, Friends Of The Earth and Plan B, and London mayor Sadiq Khan.

Lords Justice Lindblom, Singh and Haddon-Cave ruled the government did not take enough account of its commitment to the Paris Agreement on climate change when setting out its support for the proposals in its National Policy Statement (NPS).

The UN’s Paris Agreement, which came into force in November 2016, commits signatories to take measures to limit global warming to well below 2C.

Lord Justice Lindblom told the court: “The Paris Agreement ought to have been taken into account by the Secretary of State in the preparation of the NPS and an explanation given as to how it was taken into account, but it was not.”

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said the ruling was “a victory for Londoners and future generations”.

“A new runway at Heathrow would have serious consequences on climate change, on air quality, on noise pollution, on road and rail networks and on the quality of life in our city. The government must now finally see sense and abandon plans for a third runway at Heathrow,” he added.

Will Rundle, head of legal at Friends of the Earth, said: “This ruling is an absolutely ground-breaking result for climate justice. We were fighting a project that would have had dire implications for present and future generations.”

Cait Hewitt, deputy director of Aviation Environment Federation, added: “It’s very hard to see how the government could now ever demonstrate that a third runway could be reconciled with the necessary scale of climate action.

“This ruling should mark the end of plans for any new runways in the UK. The government should stand up to the airports lobby, drop its support for airport expansion, and invest instead in low-carbon transport and supporting British tourism.”

The ruling will come as a blow to the UK airline industry.

[Then there is a bit of puff from the airline industry by Tim Alderslade, chief executive of Airlines UK, the industry body representing UK-registered airlines, ]

The ruling was announced on Thursday morning following a hearing in October last year.

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/heathrow-expansion-court-of-appeal-ruling-boris-johnson-third-runway-a9362581.html


 

Some of the points from the

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENTS

27th February 2020
By Lord Justice Lindblom, Lord Justice Singh and Lord Justice Haddon-Cave

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Heathrow-summary-of-judgments-26-February-2020-online-version.pdf

9. However, we have concluded that the challenges should succeed in one important
respect. This relates to the legislative provisions concerning the Government’s policy
and commitments on climate change, in particular the provision in section 5(8) of the
Planning Act, which requires that the reasons for the policy set out in the ANPS “must
… include an explanation of how the policy set out in the statement takes account of
Government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change”. We have concluded, in particular, that the designation of the ANPS was unlawful by reason of a failure to take into account the Government’s commitment to the provisions of the Paris Agreement on climate change, concluded in December 2015 and ratified by the United Kingdom in November 2016 (paragraphs 222 to 238 and 242 to 261).

10. We have concluded that the ANPS was not produced as the law requires, and indeed as Parliament has expressly provided. The statutory regime for the formulation of a  national policy statement, which Parliament put in place in the Planning Act, was not fully complied with. The Paris Agreement ought to have been taken into account by the Secretary of State in the preparation of the ANPS and an explanation given as to how it was taken into account, but it was not (paragraph 283).

11. That, in our view, is legally fatal to the ANPS in its present form. As we have
explained, the normal result in a successful claim for judicial review must follow, that
the court will not permit unlawful action by a public body to stand. Appropriate relief
must therefore be granted, as normally it will be where unlawfulness in the conduct of
the executive is established (paragraph 284). The Secretary of State did not contend
that, if this was our conclusion, the outcome would or might have been no different –
though such an argument was pursued by Heathrow Airport Ltd. In our view, it is
necessary to grant a suitable remedy at this stage to ensure, at least, that the ANPS does
not remain effective in its present unlawful form pending the outcome of its statutory
review – under section 6 of the Planning Act – in the light of the Paris Agreement
(paragraph 278). Section 6(5) of the Planning Act states that “[after] completing a
review of all or part of a national policy statement the Secretary of State must do one of
the following … (a) amend the statement; (b) withdraw the statement’s designation as a
national policy statement; (c) leave the statement as it is” (paragraph 39).

12. The parties have had an opportunity in the light of our draft judgments to make
submissions to us on the appropriate remedy to reflect the conclusions we have
reached. In the light of those submissions, we have concluded that the appropriate
remedy is a declaration, the effect of which will be to declare the designation decision
unlawful and to prevent the ANPS from having any legal effect unless and until the
Secretary of State has undertaken a review of it in accordance with the relevant
statutory provisions, including the provisions of section 6, 7 and 9 of the Planning Act
2008. Any such review would have to be conducted in accordance with the judgment of
this court. The initiation, scope and timescale of any review must and will be a matter
for the Secretary of State to decide (paragraphs 279 to 280).

13. Our decision should be properly understood. We have not decided, and could not
decide, that there will be no third runway at Heathrow. We have not found that a
national policy statement supporting this project is necessarily incompatible with the
United Kingdom’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate
change under the Paris Agreement, or with any other policy the Government may adopt
or international obligation it may undertake. The consequence of our decision is that the
Government will now have the opportunity to reconsider the ANPS in accordance with
the clear statutory requirements that Parliament has imposed (paragraph 285).

.


.

Written statement to Parliament by Grant Shapps

Aviation update: 27 February 2020

Response to the Court of Appeal ruling on Heathrow expansion.

From:   Department for Transport and The Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP
Delivered on:   27 February 2020

The Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP

Our airports are national assets and their expansion is a core part of boosting our global connectivity. This in turn will drive economic growth for all parts of this country, connecting our nations and regions to international markets, levelling up our economy and supporting a truly global Britain.

We are also a government that is committed to a greener future. This government is acting to tackle climate change and we are the first major economy in the world to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050.

The Court of Appeal ruled today (27 February 2020) that when designating the Airports National Policy Statement, which was backed by Parliament, the previous government did not take account of the Paris Agreement, non-CO2 emissions and emissions post 2050.

We have always been clear that Heathrow expansion is a private sector project which must meet strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change, as well as being privately financed, affordable, and delivered in the best interest of consumers.

The government has taken the decision not to appeal this judgment. The promoters of the scheme will be able to seek permission from the Supreme Court to appeal if they wish.

As part of its judgment, the court has declared that the Airports National Policy Statement is of no legal effect unless and until the government carries out a review under the Planning Act 2008.

The court’s judgment is complex and requires careful consideration. We will set out our next steps in due course.

We want Britain to be the best place in the world to do business and as a government we are committed to investing in transport and wider infrastructure as part of levelling up economic opportunities across the country, including investing in the strategic road network, proceeding with HS2, and committing £5 billion of funding to improve bus and cycle services outside London.

We fully recognise the importance of the aviation sector for the whole of the UK economy. The UK’s airports support connections to over 370 overseas destinations in more than 100 countries facilitating trade, investment and tourism. It facilitates £95.2 billion of UK’s non-EU trade exports; contributes at least £14 billion directly to GDP; supports over half a million jobs and underpins the competitiveness and global reach of our national and our regional economies. Under our wider “making best use” policy, airports across the UK are already coming forward with ambitious proposals to invest in their infrastructure.

We are committed to working closely with the sector to meet our climate change commitments. Our global aviation emissions offsetting scheme, sustainable aviation fuels, greenhouse gas removal technology and eventually, electric net-zero planes, will all help play their part in the aviation sector decarbonising. We also welcome Sustainable Aviation’s industry led commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and the range of innovative action this will unlock to achieve this outcome. We are investing nearly £2 billion into aviation research and technology, and this year my department will publish an ambitious plan of actions setting out how we will decarbonise transport and support the UK achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

It is critical that vital infrastructure projects, including airport expansion, drive the whole UK economy, level up our regions, and unite our country.

Published 27 February 2020

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/aviation-update-27-february-2020


Comment from Heathrow campaigners:

The prospects of this project ever happening were disappearing, even before this legal judgement.
Heathrow still have not provided:
• A plan to address the impact of climate change the scheme;
• Any flight path information for communities across the South East;
• The money for essential public transport improvements;
• A basic drawing of how they’ll build over the M25;
• Detail of how they’ll finance the project.
Heathrow has failed to provide the reassurances needed for its expansion plans. It is impossible for them to do so, on costs, air pollution, noise or carbon emissions.  Heathrow and the DfT know that.
Even Heathrow’s own shareholders are questioning its viability. Ferrovial said just last month that it may look elsewhere for investment if expansion isn’t cheaper.
A number of significant facts have changed since Parliament voted on Heathrow
expansion in June 2018:
• The amendment to the Climate Change Act to include a target of Net Zero
(June 2019)
• the further consultation by Heathrow (summer 2019)
• the delay to the construction timeline reducing any economic benefits
further (December 2019)
• the need to revise the noise and air pollution assessments to reflect best
practice
The evidence base has changed since a National Policy Statement on Heathrow
expansion was put to Parliament.
Now the Courts have found the NPS was not properly written, and did not correctly take climate impacts, and our obligations under the Paris Agreement, into account.
Campaigners will continue to work, to ensure that Heathrow expansion, in any form, is
not permitted to blight the lives of local communities, or do further needless damage to the global climate.
.