Climate campaigners win Heathrow expansion case

Heathrow Airport's controversial plans to build a third runway have been thrown into doubt after a court ruling.

The government's Heathrow's expansion decision was unlawful because it did not take climate commitments into account, the Court of Appeal said.

Heathrow said it would challenge the decision, but the government has not lodged an appeal.

The judges said that in future, a third runway could go ahead, as long as it fits with the UK's climate policy.

The case was brought by environmental groups, councils and the Mayor of London.

The Court of Appeal found that the government had not followed UK policy when backing the controversial expansion plans.

[...continues]

I really do strongly feel though that democratically accountable politicians, and not judges, should be making big decisions such as this though.

...yet another "suicide note" from the judiciary.

- this is yet another "suicide note" from the judiciary. ......QED !

I am pleased by the verdict of the court.
I would not go so far as to prohibit flying, but cant support any expansion thereof.
The purpose of increased airport capacity is to accommodate more flights and more passengers.
If we are serious about the climate emergency, then we need fewer flights and less passengers, not more

Please try to take into account that despite all the bad press, commercial aviation contributes about 2.5% of global "man-made"
CO2 emissions. And that will probably reduce, as commercial aircraft are getting cleaner and more fuel-efficient all the time.

This sort of decision makes the UK look like a global laughing stock.

This decision will also hamper the efforts of airports like Southampton, where a very small runway extension is needed to improve the airport's future viability (and maybe it's survival). The City Council are opposed, although they are quite happy for cruise ships to sit in port (not on "shore power") all day belching far worse pollution into the atmosphere.

 

This year, more than any other, Britain needs to be leading by example on climate change.

but certainly Amsterdam, Frankfurt and others will be smiling quietly tonight.

Please try to take into account that despite all the bad press, commercial aviation contributes about 2.5% of global "man-made" CO2 emissions. And that will probably reduce, as commercial aircraft are getting cleaner and more fuel-efficient all the time.

I really do strongly feel though that democratically accountable politicians, and not judges, should be making big decisions such as this though.

I think it is necessary that there are checks and balances with the government system. If the courts question something parliament can legislate to make adjustments they see fit.

News this morning https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51665682 might cause the government to reconsider its decision not to appeal the Heathrow case. Can railways schemes also fall foul of this?

Aviation is a notoriously polluting sector, but the debate about cars is less clear-cut.

The government hopes technical innovation in the shape of electric and hydrogen cars will allow current or even increased levels of mobility to be carbon-free by 2050.

Its critics doubt the clean car revolution will happen fast enough to prevent emissions breaching climate laws.

They also warn about the environmental impact of the mining and manufacturing needed to make battery cars, and of the unavoidable particulate pollution generated by tyres and brakes.

Bad news IMO, If we are serious about the climate we need to fly a LOT less, not be expanding facilities so as to permit of more flying.

It also sets a worrying precedent as this ruling shows that promises and undertakings are worthless as they can later be overturned by the courts.

[size=14pt[/size]Gatwick expansion backed over Heathrow third runway
12 FEB, 2021 BY ROB HORGAN

The London Plan – drawn up by Sadiq Khan and approved by Communities secretary Robert Jenrick – includes no provision for Heathrow Airport Ltd’s plans for a third runway.

In fact, the plan mention’s the mayor’s “strong objection” to Heathrow expansion plans on a number of occasions.

This is despite advice from the Planning Inspectorate that the London Plan “should be modified to include the new northwest runway scheme at Heathrow.”

Instead, the London Plan supports expansions at Gatwick as well as at Stansted, London City, Luton and Southend airports.

Heathrow's 3rd runway has lost support of late, and may be postponed for another decade or so. That seems to be the practical effect of the current thinking, as outlined in New Civil Engineer.

(Continues at source)

Time to start all over again, unless the Government puts its foot down. This could help Bristol in its airport expansion plan, and the people of the villages scheduled for conversion to airfield might be able to breathe slightly more easily (in the metaphorical sense) for a few years until this rears its head again - if the plan is given the nod by the government. The Gatwick plan will upset fewer people than the Heathrow one did, and lawyers are cheaper round those parts.

Perhaps the plan is to use HS2 to get to a new larger hub at Birmingham International.

HS2 suggests a journey time of 38 minutes from London (Source - HS2) compared with a journey time of 49 mins (average)  London to Gatwick. (Source - Trainline)

Boris could potentially support this because it's not Heathrow, and being Central England it's closer to his new voters in the North.

Climate emergency ?

I think they will approve LHR expansion, mainly because the taxpayer will not have much in the way of spend, most will be private sector.

I'd be surprised if the timing of the change in planning laws, particularly restricting the ability to escalate and prolong objections is a coincidence in this context.

And now it's official.......

https://metro.co.uk/2025/01/29/heathrows-third-runway-given-green-light-for-140000000-passengers-a-year-22454631/

Heathrow's third runway can be built in 10 years, Reeves says

Heathrow's third runway can be built and operating in a decade's time, Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said.

Reeves told the BBC she wanted to see "spades in the ground" in the current Parliament and planes to start using the runway by 2035.

She also said that Sadiq Khan, the Labour Mayor of London who is opposed to Heathrow's expansion, could not stop the new runway.

Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said the Conservatives were in favour of a third runway at Heathrow "in principle" but "it remains to be seen" whether it can be built in a decade.

The extra runway at Heathrow was one of a number of infrastructure projects announced by the chancellor on Wednesday as part of the government's plans to boost economic growth.

"We think that we can get flights off within a decade," Reeves told the BBC. "I say that because we're not just announcing that we back it, we are changing the way that our planning system works to make it easier to deliver projects like the third runway at Heathrow."

When asked if Sadiq Khan could stop the expansion the chancellor said "no". "There can be judicial reviews but we are confident that this airport expansion will happen, that we will get the third runway built," she said.

Some have argued that it will take much longer than a decade for a third runway at Heathrow to become reality.



A formal planning process has to take place, which could take between 18 months and two years. Any judicial review of the plan could take another year and a half, while actually building the runway could take about seven years.

The airport's expansion is highly controversial - facing opposition from environmental groups, local authorities and nearby residents.

Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary has called the plan "a dead cat. If it ever arrives, it will be about 2040, 2045 or 2050... it will not deliver any growth," he said on Wednesday.

The Green Party has called Heathrow's expansion the "definition of irresponsible", with the party's co-leader, Adrian Ramsay, saying it was a "fantasy" that the projects could be done without environmental damage.

Reeves was questioned over her previous opposition to the expansion of Leeds-Bradford airport over air and noise pollution grounds. "If Leeds-Bradford came back with plans to expand I would support these because I think things have changed significantly in the past few years," she said.

She said there were now more efficient plane engines and the use of sustainable aviation fuel was a "game changer". However, supplies of this fuel are currently very low. According to the European regulator EASA, they made up just 0.05% of the fuel used in the EU in 2020. It also costs much more than regular jet fuel.

The UK government has introduced a Sustainable Aviation Fuel Mandate, which stipulates that 2% of all jet fuel supplied this year must be SAF, increasing to 10% in 2030 and 22% in 2040.

The director-general of the International Air Transport Association, Willie Walsh, has cast doubt on how quickly this can be achieved. "Sustainable fuel is a real thing, but we need it in significantly greater volumes than are available today," he told LBC on Wednesday. "Mandating airlines to use a fuel source that doesn't exist today doesn't make an awful lot of sense."

Stride said that while the Conservatives backed the third runway in principle, "it will take some considerable time. If the government keeps pushing on this it will be maybe the 2040s or the 2050s or who knows before it comes off."

Despite broadly backing plans to boost the UK's infrastructure, the Conservatives have argued tax rises in the Budget and planned changes to employment rights will damage growth. "The biggest barriers to growth in this country are Rachel Reeves, Keir Starmer and their job-destroying Budget," Stride said.

As well as announcing backing for a third runway at Heathrow, the chancellor also said on Wednesday that other projects would be supported to try to boost growth in the economy.  Expansions at Luton and Gatwick airports are being backed, as well as a "growth corridor" between Oxford and Cambridge, which she claimed could be "Europe's Silicon Valley". Reeves also told the BBC that when it came to planning and decision making over infrastructure projects "we need to do things differently".

It emerged last year that the HS2 rail line was spending £100m on a shield to protect bats in ancient woodland in Buckinghamshire. The chancellor said: "There are trade-offs and the balance has gone too far in the direction of always protecting every bat and every newt."

The government is setting up a fund, which builders can pay into to help nature restoration, "but not necessarily in the place the development is happening", Reeves said. "So builders can get on and build, and that money can be used for nature restoration projects elsewhere."

Separately, a leading economic think tank has warned that higher borrowing costs for the government may mean tax rises or spending cuts if it wants to stick to its own self-imposed rules.  According to a report from the Resolution Foundation, the government is spending £7bn a year more paying interest on its debt than it was at the time of the Budget.  As a result, the think tank said higher tax or cuts "may be needed" if the government wants to keep its promise not to spend more day-to-day than it brings in through tax.

A Treasury spokesperson told the BBC its commitment to its fiscal rules is "non-negotiable".

It seems obvious to me, given that any developments at Heathrow are unlikely to happen for quite some time, that bringing the second runway at Gatwick, which I understand is currently used in emergencies only, into live use would be the best quick fix for the stated lack of capacity issues. There appears to be plenty of room for upgraded and/or new terminal facilities.

It seems obvious to me, given that any developments at Heathrow are unlikely to happen for quite some time, that bringing the second runway at Gatwick, which I understand is currently used in emergencies only, into live use would be the best quick fix for the stated lack of capacity issues. There appears to be plenty of room for upgraded and/or new terminal facilities.

I'd be surprised if the timing of the change in planning laws, particularly restricting the ability to escalate and prolong objections is a coincidence in this context.