New runways at Heathrow and Stansted have been cleared for take-off after the Government’s plans for airport expansion were ruled lawful by the High Court today.
However, a judge has allowed a challenge by Essex residents and local authorities, who will now be involved in determining the Stansted runway ‘s location and how much land it occupies. There must also be further consultations over expansion at Luton Airport, the court ruled.
Residents’ groups had formed a coalition with the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Hillingdon to fight proposals contained in the 2003 Aviation White Paper. Local authorities in Hertfordshire and North Essex also joined in the first ever High Court challenge to a White Paper.
Alastair Darling, the Transport Secretary, said he was pleased that the court has upheld the case for two additional runways in the South East, and rejected calls for that part of the Air Transport White Paper to be quashed.
Advertisement
“The Government has always accepted that the exact positioning and capacity of the runways at Stansted will be decided by the normal planning process. Implementation of the policy set out in the White Paper remains on course and we will report on progress in 2006,” he said.
Mr Darling said the Government will not seek permission to appeal the Stansted decision nor the judgment on Luton.
The Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) group said that although today’s judgment stopped short of overturning the Government’s airports policy, it had delivered “a major setback to BAA’s ambition to build a second runway at Stansted by 2011-12”.
The group was said that alternative options for a second runway at Stansted, which were smaller in scale than the option proposed in the White Paper and were rejected by the Government three years ago, must now be reconsidered.
Peter Sanders, SSE chairman, said the decision vindicated its arguments about the White Paper and was a milestone in the battle against a second runway at Stansted being built.
Advertisement
But he added that the High Court decision had created even more uncertainty for the local community. “Fairness demands that the Government should now completely withdraw its support for major expansion at Stansted and that BAA should also do the decent thing and publicly announce that it will not be proceeding with its plans for a second runway,” Mr Sanders said.
The protest group will consider appealing against some aspects of the court decision, he added.
The proposals included another runway at Stansted airport in Essex by 2011-12, followed by a short, third, runway at Heathrow in west London.
The plans, along with expansion at other airports, are intended to accommodate a massive increase in air traffic by 2030.
The protesters had argued that they had been deprived of information and not properly consulted. The Government was also accused of failing to conduct a full environmental impact assessment of the White Paper proposals as required by European Law.
Advertisement
During a recent hearing, the judge was told the plans were the result of a “manifestly inadequate and hence unlawful” public consultation.
The decision will be a relief for Mr Darling, as his 30-year airport strategy had already been sent back to the drawing board once. He was ordered to restart his consultation two years ago after the courts decided that he had unfairly ignored Gatwick.
In the latest challenge, lawyers for the protesters argued that the consultation document leading up to the White Paper ignored possible alternatives to a third Heathrow runway.
The consultation document also failed to give people the opportunity of commenting on the proposal, favoured in the White Paper, of going for an extended runway at Luton airport in Bedfordshire, it was argued.
They also contended there was lack of consultation over the “questionable” economic case for building a second runway at Stansted, which conflicted with the Government’s own consultation documents requiring “commercial viability”.
Advertisement
Mr Darling’s counsel, Richard Drabble QC, said the Secretary of State should be ordered to pay two-thirds of the Essex/Herts costs.
In relation to the challenge brought by the London boroughs, Mr Drabble contended that the appropriate order was that the Secretary of State should pay their costs of two grounds of the claim and that they should pay his costs relating to the remaining ten grounds.