Heathrow third runway blocked by courts

The government’s Heathrow policy is in tatters after last week's High Court ruling 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’.

If the government wants to pursue its plans for Heathrow expansion it must now go back to square one and reconsider the entire case for the runway.

The implications of last Friday's ruling are profound, not just for Heathrow but for 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Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003 Air Transport White Paper – the foundation of expansion plans across the country - is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008.

The judge expressed real concern over the “hardship caused to the local community by uncertainty” over the third runway. The 2M coalition of councils 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.

The judge ruled that:

• If the Government decides to push ahead with the runway project it must now 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 bigger airport.

• The Government’s entire aviation policy must now be reviewed to take into account 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.”

• On the economic case for Heathrow expansion he would be ‘surprised’ if the 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.”

• On the issue of surface access he said the claimants’ case – that there is 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 runway.

The judge is now inviting the Government to sign a legally binding undertaking 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.

The challenge was brought by Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead councils with support from Kensington and Chelsea, Transport for London and the Mayor of London.

The councils were joined by the local residents group (Notrag), aircraft noise campaigners HACAN, World Wildlife Fund UK, Campaign to Protect Rural England and Greenpeace. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was an expert witness.

The local authorities are all members of the 2M Group which comprises 24 local councils (including Camden) opposed to Heathrow expansion with a combined population of 5 million.