This website is no longer actively maintained

For up-to-date information on the campaigns it represents please visit:

No Airport Expansion! is a campaign group that aims to provide a rallying point for the many local groups campaigning against airport expansion projects throughout the UK.

Visit No Airport Expansion! website

High Court refuses application for JR of government programme to build more roads

Campaigners have lost a legal challenge to the government’s £27bn roadbuilding programme after the high court judge, Mr Justice Holgate, dismissed their application for a judicial review. Lawyers for Transport Action Network (TAN) argued that the transport secretary, Grant Shapps, had drawn up the roads investment strategy for England, known as RIS2, without taking into account the UK’s climate commitments or assessing the additional carbon emissions and climate impact of another 4,000 miles of road. Bizarrely, the judge considered the road building plans were not irrational, in bad faith or manifestly absurd. He accepted the assurances of the DfT that the road building policy was consistent with the UK’s net zero target for 2050. And that a lot was being done to decarbonise road transport, but he added:  “Whether they are enough is not a matter for the court.” The campaigners, TAN, are appealing against the judgement.  The case could be an important precedent, relevant to aviation.  Prof Jillian Anable of Leeds University’s institute for transport studies said the DfT’s road building plans, and disregard for the the climate implications, “can only be interpreted as either blatant dishonesty or failure to understand the science.”

.

Activists lose legal bid to stop £27bn roads plan for England

Climate campaigners appeal against judgment saying ministers are being ‘let off the hook’

By @GwynTopham  (Transport, at the Guardian)

Campaigners have lost a legal challenge to the government’s £27bn roadbuilding programme after the high court dismissed their application for a judicial review.

Lawyers for Transport Action Network (TAN) argued that the transport secretary, Grant Shapps, had drawn up the roads investment strategy for England, known as RIS2, without taking into account the UK’s environmental commitments or assessing the additional carbon emissions and climate impact of another 4,000 miles of road.

However, the judge, Mr Justice Holgate, said Shapps had received a “briefing, albeit laconic” from officials saying the policy was consistent with net zero targets, based on a comprehensive programme of analysis, and that Shapps did not need to know the actual numbers.

He said claimants had “a heavy evidential onus to establish that a decision was irrational, absent bad faith or manifest absurdity” and noted that the government was “taking a range of steps to tackle the need for urgency in addressing carbon production in the transport sector”, adding: “Whether they are enough is not a matter for the court.”

TAN argued Shapps was legally required to consider the effect on the environment and there was a clear inconsistency in increasing traffic during the worsening climate emergency.

The campaigners’ lawyers have appealed against the judgment and are crowdfunding for further legal costs.

A separate legal challenge to the national policy statement that underpins roadbuilding remains live, despite indications from government sources that it would settle the case after agreeing it needed to be reviewed when it published its transport decarbonisation plan. However, Shapps has since said the Department for Transport will not complete the review before 2023 and the policy will remain effective to support roadbuilding until then.

TAN said it was shocked by the ruling. Its director, Chris Todd, said: “In a month of unprecedented fires and floods, the effect of this judgment is to prioritise the ‘stability and certainty’ of the roads over that of our climate. This will surely send shivers down the spine of anyone hoping for urgent action … As the quickening pace of global heating threatens the rule of law, we need legislation upheld rather than ministers let off the hook.”

Prof Jillian Anable of Leeds University’s institute for transport studies, who acted as an expert witness for TAN, said the government’s “decision to continue to increase the pace of roadbuilding in a decade when the vast majority of vehicles on the road will still be petrol and diesel, and all modelling shows that we need to cut traffic in order to work within that carbon budget, can only be interpreted as either blatant dishonesty or failure to understand the science.”

 

.


See earlier:

Legality of £27bn roads building programme in question due to climate targets

The legality of the government’s second Road Investment Strategy (RIS2) is to be determined by the High Court.  Campaigners from Transport Action Network (TAN) say transport secretary Grant Shapps broke the law when approving the £27.4bn road strategy, by failing to consider its effects on the environment.  The RIS2 is for road upgrades between 2020 and 2025 and includes the Lower Thames Crossing and the Stonehenge Tunnel. The challenge by TAN says there was a failure to take into account the UK’s net zero carbon emissions target as well as the Paris Climate Agreement. Also that the government “failed to carry out Strategic Environmental Assessment of RIS2”.  The TAN claim uses the precedent of the legal challenge of the Airports National Policy Statement. The DfT is arguing that the road building should go ahead, using the precedent of the failure of the challenge by Chris Packham against HS2.  TAN say: “If we are serious about tackling the climate emergency, improving quality of life after the pandemic and delivering a less congested future, we need to reduce traffic.”  If TAN succeeds, blocking road building, it could set an important precedent, not only for the UK, but globally, (airports, not only roads) in the run up to COP26 in November. 

https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2021/06/legality-of-27bn-roads-building-programme-in-question-due-to-climate-targets/


See earlier, in 2020:

DfT ‘refuses to back down’ over £27bn roads legal challenge over carbon emissions

In April the Transport Action Network (TAN) revealed its intentions to launch a legal application to the High Court, as the DfT ignored environmental legislation in approving the five-year funding plan.  Now the DfT have given TAN’s lawyers its official response. It has “refused to back down”.  The legal challenge by TAN was made, as a result of the judgement by the Appeal Court in February, on the Heathrow case. It ruled that the Airports National Policy Statement  (ANPS) was illegal, as proper consideration had not been given to carbon emissions and the UK’s obligations under the Paris Agreement. The DfT letter claims, rather improbably, that decarbonisation will be addressed ‘at a society-wide level’ and its largest ever roads plan in fact ‘is a fully-integrated part of this wider effort to reach net zero emissions’. The legal challenge, by the same lawyers who won the Heathrow case, will proceed with the case on road building. As the courts found the ANPS was illegal, any other NPS will have to take carbon properly into account. Heathrow is appealing to the Supreme court on the February ruling, with a hearing on the 9th and 10th October. 

https://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2020/05/dft-refuses-to-back-down-over-27bn-roads-challenge-over-carbon-emissions/

.

.