Commentary:
The real significance of this week’s Court decision, is that the battleground now moves to the forthcoming results of Heathrow’s own consultation on its expansion plans. Its slick and professional consultation was about ‘Airspace and Future operations’ and included major sections on Managing noise, Directional preference, Night flights and Respite arrangements, but the political reality is that it is also about the projected third runway.
All eyes therefore will be on what the Airport publishes, and how it will influence the debate.
This issue is far from over …
Article:
The High Court in London has removed a big obstacle from Heathrow airport’s decades-long campaign to build a third runway by rejecting five legal challenges to the planned £14bn scheme to expand the UK’s aviation hub.
The court was reviewing the government’s approval of the project, with local authorities, environmentalists and rival bidders arguing it should be scrapped.
Heathrow is operating near capacity, with almost 480,000 flights in 2018. Construction of a third runway has been discussed for 30 years; a first attempt failed at judicial review in 2010.
The government’s 2018 national policy statement, which recommended expanding Heathrow, said south-east England was running out of airport capacity, which it needed to support the UK’s “new trading relationships” after Brexit.
Handing down the judgment on Wednesday, Lord Justice Hickinbottom said that all challenges should be dismissed.
The claimants had argued that Chris Grayling, transport secretary, had ignored environmental factors, including air quality and climate change, but the court found these were not arguable grounds.
The court also found that Mr Grayling had not unfairly preferred Heathrow’s own scheme for a third runway to a scheme proposed by a rival company.
Members of the losing side said they would appeal the judgment, although the court left them with a narrow range of grounds to do so.
Robert Barnstone of the No 3rd Runway coalition said he was confident that those opposed to expansion would win “once the case is heard on merit rather than process” at a later stage in the planning process. He said he was keen to hear what the report by the government’s advisory Committee on Climate Change — due on Thursday — would say about the aviation industry.
The challenges included one brought by a consortium of local authorities, campaigning organisation Greenpeace and London Mayor Sadiq Khan, on the grounds of air quality, climate change, noise pollution and transport access. Shirley Rodrigues, deputy mayor for environment and energy, said she was “disappointed” with the decision.
The claimants argued that the government had acted unlawfully by not taking into account the Paris climate change agreement, which committed to limiting any global temperature rise to “well below” 2C.
However, the court ruled that while the government had ratified the Paris agreement, it did not form part of UK law.
The government has got off the hook because they are not willing to recognise the Paris agreement in law
John McDonnell, local MP and shadow chancellor
John McDonnell, Heathrow’s local MP, said: “The government has got off the hook because they are not willing to recognise the Paris agreement in law.”
A second challenge came from Heathrow Hub, a rival scheme to develop a third runway that would extend the airport’s existing northern runway; Heathrow Airport Limited, the airport’s owner, plans to build a new runway, known as the North-West Runway. After the judgment, Heathrow Hub said it was considering its options.
Heathrow’s scheme was recommended by the Airports Commission and approved by MPs in June 2018 with a majority of 296. After the vote, the government adopted a national policy statement, which contained principles for the expansion. The judicial review looked at the process of approval for the statement.
Heathrow launched a more detailed consultation in June for its final, detailed planning consent, including how it would mitigate the effects of growth on local communities. If the scheme goes ahead, its planned completion date is 2026.
The airport, which was not a direct party to the judicial review, said: “We are delighted with today’s ruling which is a further demonstration that the debate on Heathrow expansion has been had and won, not only in parliament, but in the courts also.”
Javier Echave, Heathrow’s chief financial officer, said that the expansion process has “sometimes . . . felt painful and slow but the benefits are there in robust evidence that we are delivering”.
On Wednesday morning, Heathrow reported a slight decline in revenue for the first quarter.
This article originally appeared on Financial Times
The Institute cannot confirm the accuracy of this story or confirm that it presents a balanced view. If you feel this is inaccurate, we would welcome your perspective and evidence that this is the case.
