GOVERNMENT’S HEATHROW EXPANSION PLANS IN TATTERS AS JUDGE SLAMS RUNWAY POLICY
to scrap third runway
ruled that ministers’ decision to give a green light to the proposed third runway
does not hold any weight. The judge dismissed the Government’s claims to the
contrary as ‘untenable in law and common sense’.
go back to square one and reconsider the entire case for the runway.
airport expansion plans across the UK. Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003
Air Transport White Paper – the foundation of expansion plans across the country
– is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008.
by uncertainty" over the third runway. The coalition which brought the successful
legal challenge is now calling on the Government to end the uncertainty and scrap
the runway plans once and for all.
review the climate change implications of Heathrow expansion, the economic case
for a third runway, and the issue of how additional passengers would get to a
the implications of the 2008 Climate Change Act. The judge found that "the claimants’
submissions add up, in my view, to a powerful demonstration of the potential significance
of developments in climate change policy since the 2003 Air Transport White Paper.
They are clearly matters which will need to be taken into account under the new
Airports National Policy Statement."(1)
recent tripling of the estimated cost to society of emitting carbon did not have
‘a significant effect’ on the economic case for the runway. The judge also said
that "it makes no sense to treat the economic case as settled in 2003."
no credible plan in place to transport millions of extra passengers to an expanded
Heathrow – was ‘justified’. Significantly, he noted that the Government was "unable
to provide a convincing answer" in court when it was pressed about over-crowding
on the Piccadilly underground line that would result from construction of a third
that it will not base future aviation policy solely on its 2003 white paper. A
further court hearing is expected to take place next month to examine the Government’s
response to the judge’s request. At the same hearing the coalition will seek costs
and fully expects to recover those costs from the Government.
to close down debate on the true economic impact of a third runway by presenting
it as a done deal.
to have to take on board the real consequences of new climate change laws. The
judge made it clear the figures just did not add up.
will have to go back to the beginning and justify the whole economic case in public.
Knowing what we now know about rising carbon costs this is an argument they cannot
and environmental scrutiny which the Government tried to avoid. As local councils
we call on the Prime Minister to do to the decent thing and bury this discredited
3rd runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow so that we can cast off the 8 years
of blight and start to rejuvenate our communities."
will now have to go back to the drawing board and conduct a broad consultation
on key issues where their case is extremely weak. The third runway was already
on life support, but with this ruling it’s hard to even find a pulse. This shows
that David Cameron and Nick Clegg backed the right horse when they pledged to
scrap the third runway, and it makes any Conservative U-turn after the election
all but politically impossible."
but more than that it makes it clear that the Government’s whole policy of airport
expansion must be reviewed in order to bring it into line with the Climate Change
the aviation sector. For a judge to tell the Government that it cannot build huge
pieces of carbon-intensive infrastructure without considering the long-term consequences
is a resounding win in the fight to tackle climate change. It is also a further
indication of the need for the UK to make a swift transition to a low carbon economy.
WWF would now urge the Government to focus on green investment, encouraging alternative
ways of connecting with people wherever possible, such as high speed rail and
videoconferencing, rather than relying on carbon-heavy methods such as flying."
third runway. This was undemocratic and it was wrong.
the expansion of Heathrow. The High Court has now made clear that a fundamental
review of aviation policy is needed. This not just a victory for people living
around Heathrow or around other airports, it is a victory for everyone who wants
a tranquil countryside and a democratic planning system.”
serious concerns about a third runway at Heathrow, it also calls into question
the Government’s entire aviation policy. This really could be the final nail
in the coffin for a third runway."
when we are battling to reduce our carbon emissions made no sense.
its impacts with catastrophic declines in seabird numbers in parts of the North
message from the High Court is that Government must now take those concerns into
said: “In essence this judgment means that the game is up for a third runway at
Heathrow and I am calling upon the government to accept the inevitable and lift
this threat to my community.
policy based upon high-speed rail.”
01895 556 064 and 07780913334
07739 332 796 (out of hours)
that was established by the Planning Act 2008. They are strategic planning documents
will set out the national need for major infrastructure developments such as
power stations, ports, airports, roads and transmission lines. When an application
is submitted for such a development above a certain threshold, there will be a
presumption in favour of granting permission. The Government has said it intends
to publish a draft Airports NPS next year.
Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead) are
claimants to the challenge, alongside the local residents group (NoTRAG) and
the national campaigning group against airport expansion HACAN. WWF-UK, Campaign
to Protect Rural England and Greenpeace are also claimants. Transport for London
is an independent party supporting the claim. The Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds is an expert witness. The challenge is also supported by Kensington and
Chelsea and the Mayor of London. The local authorities are all members of the
2M Group which comprises 24 local councils opposed to Heathrow expansion with
a combined population of 5 million.
in the High Court at a rolled-up hearing on the 23rd – 25th February 2010.
energy review which backed a new generation of nuclear power stations. As a result
the government was forced to re-run the public consultation.
become the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide in the UK. Unrestrained airport
expansion would make it impossible for the UK to play its part in tackling climate
change. The Government has committed the UK to cuts of at least 80% in CO2 emissions
by 2050. Research from the respected Tyndall Centre shows that if the industry
is allowed to expand as predicted, aviation emissions alone would make it impossible
to meet this target.
warming effect on the climate. The Committee on Climate Change has recently suggested
that aviation has a Global Warming Potential of around two, meaning that its total
warming effect is twice that of its CO2 emissions alone.
with recommendations of how the Government target to reduce aviation emissions
to 2005 levels by 2050 could be met. The Committee recommended that aviation growth
needs to be limited to around half of that planned in the White Paper, but warned
that the target may need to be further tightened in the future.
Nigel Pleming QC of 39 Essex Street, Nathalie Lieven QC and David Forsdick of
Heathrow’s third runway ‘dead’ and runway decision ‘untenable’
at Heathrow for years, with campaigners calling the project “dead”. The alliance
of local councils and environmental groups has resulted in a resounding defeat
for the government. Strangely Andrew Adonis quickly put out a statement saying
he welcomed the ruling. If the Government wants to pursue its 3rd runway plans
it must now go back to square one.