Heathrow Runway Go-ahead Faces Judicial Review today (Twickenham & Richmond Liberal Democrats)

Heathrow Runway Go-ahead Faces Judicial Review today

February 23, 2010 3:58 PM

At the High Court: Tom Brake MP, Caroline Pidgeon AM, Susan Kramer MP, Cllr Serge Lourie & Peter Pattison, Prospective LD candidate for Lewisham E.

• TODAY sees the start of court proceedings challenging last year's controversial decision to give the go-ahead to a third runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow Airport.   

Richmond Council is part of an alliance of twelve organisations backing the legal challenge. The alliance is made up of local authorities, green groups and residents' groups representing millions of people. The alliance's lawyers will be claiming in court that the consultation process was fundamentally flawed and that the decision to expand Heathrow is at odds with the UK's overall climate change targets. If the alliance wins, the decision to proceed with the runway may be overturned.

Speaking on behalf of the 2M Group of local councils, Richmond Council Leader Serge Lourie, said: "Policy has been made on the hoof and since the former Transport Secretary announced his decision to the House of Commons in January 2009, in my view, any justification for the decision has steadily unravelled. If a third runway at Heathrow airport were to be built, the airport would become the single largest emitter of CO2 in the UK. This contradicts the national plans to reduce carbon emissions for aviation. The Department for Transport would also like to see the runway only being used at half its capacity until a review in 2020, to check if noise and air pollution, as well as carbon targets, could be met.

But in our view imposing this limit destroys the economic case for a third runway. What is more, the measures put forward at the time to get the plans through Parliament mean that the expansion plan is fundamentally different from the proposals on which the public were consulted in 2007. 90 % of people opposed expansion in that consultation, and our alliance representing over 5 million people is against such major expansion. The Government's environmental and economic plans don't add up, and we are going to court to test them."

Susan Kramer said: "The Government has left us with no choice but to take the fight against Heathrow expansion to the courts. We all know the 'consultation' on the plans was abysmal - with documents seemingly designed to confuse. "Despite this, thousands of local residents replied to say no to more flights, more noise and more pollution. But the Government gave the green light to the third runway anyway - ignoring huge opposition and overwhelming environmental evidence. It shouldn't take a High Court challenge for the Government to see sense and drop this disastrous expansion plan."

The alliance also argues, supported by Transport for London, that the evidence does not support the Government's claim that there will be enough public transport to serve the new runway.  The decision to proceed with a third runway was made by the then Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon in a statement to Parliament in January 2009. The alliance alleges that the number of measures introduced to pass the plans through Parliament mean the expansion is fundamentally different to the proposals on which the Government consulted the public in 2007. The Transport Department's lawyers are now claiming the new measures were not part of the decision to expand Heathrow.

One of the measures announced was a new target to bring carbon emissions from aviation back to 2005 levels by 2050. The Transport Department asked the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) how it could meet this target. The CCC responded by telling the Government it would have to severely curtail its plans for airport expansion throughout the UK. The alliance considers that the expansion of Heathrow cannot now proceed, since the policy of which it is a part has been discredited.

Another of the measures would see the runway only being used at half its capacity until a review in 2020 could check to see if noise and air pollution as well as carbon targets could be met. But imposing this limit does much to destroy the economic case for a third runway and it would also see the village of Sipson destroyed regardless.

Kew resident George Crozier, said: "A third runway would destroy the community of Sipson. Homes, schools, shops, pubs would all be demolished. That is destruction on a massive scale. We believe that the consultation process was seriously flawed."

Kew resident J-F Burford said: "This Government proposal is a disgrace as it would create the largest emitter of CO2 in the country. If we lose this legal challenge, the Government will be able to run roughshod over local residents, but, if we win, it will make it ever more difficult for any Government to build the third runway."

Notrag Background notes:

• Six local authorities (Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead) are parties to the challenge, together with the local residents group (NOTrag = No Third Runway Action Group) and the campaigning group against Heathrow expansion HACAN. WWF-UK, Campaign to Protect Rural England and Greenpeace are also parties. 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. Transport for London is an independent organisation supporting the claim. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is an expert witness. The challenge is also supported by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and by the Mayor of London.

• In February 2007, Greenpeace won a Judicial Review against the Government's energy review, which backed a new generation of nuclear power stations. As a result the government was forced to re-run the public consultation.

• If a third runway at Heathrow airport were to be built, the airport would become the single largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the UK. Unrestrained airport expansion would make it impossible for the UK to meet its targets for 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.

• Aviation emissions do more damage to the climate because they are released at altitude - known as global warming impact. Scientists multiply aviation emissions (which include other gases not just CO2) by 2 to 3 times to calculate their increased climate impact

• Historically small increases in the efficiency of planes have been overwhelmed by an unrestrained growth in flights. There is no evidence to suggest that this will not be the case in the future if action is not taken to constrain expansion. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution found that the industry's targets are 'clearly aspirations rather than projections'.

• The decision on Heathrow is underpinned by the government's aviation policy, set out in the 2003 Future of Air Transport White Paper, which promoted a policy of airport expansion across the UK. The climate science has changed significantly since 2003, as has the law and the policy context - notably the Climate Change Act 2008, and the Committee on Climate Change's 2009 aviation report which says that aviation growth needs to be limited to less than a quarter of that planned in the White Paper.

• All the claimants are represented by Harrison Grant (solicitors) instructing Nigel Pleming QC of 39 Essex Street, Nathalie Lieven QC and David Forsdick of Landmark Chambers.

Richmond upon Thames Liberal Democrats: