Blog General News News about Airports Recent News

Councils that brought legal challenge re. Heathrow say Londoners face added noise and long-term health impacts from Court decision

Councils say the High Court’s failure to quash the federal government’s Airport Nationwide Policy Statement (ANPS) backing Heathrow enlargement might deliver long-term injury to the health of hundreds of thousands of Londoners. They warn that giant areas of London and the House Counties shall be affected by noise from the brand new north-west runway. The courtroom has refused all the purposes for judicial evaluate of the ANPS primarily as a result of it has determined that at this policy stage the decision to help a third runway at Heathrow needs to only meet a low degree of judicial scrutiny.  All the injury brought about to life and health and the surroundings by a third runway and its associated visitors (injury inflicting air air pollution, noise air pollution and contributing to local weather change) should be more intently scrutinised on the DCO stage. Objections to a third runway have to be heard then and any decision to approve it is going to be open to challenge by way of the courts. The councils will continue to explore each avenue attainable to guard their residents from the health and environmental penalties of a 3rd runway.  Hillingdon “has set aside sufficient funding to defend our environment and the health and wellbeing of our people for however long it takes to do so.” See the comments of the Council Leaders.
.
Tweet

Londoners face added noise and long-term health impacts from Heathrow decision

1st Might 2019

Assertion from the 5 native authorities that made a joint legal challenge to the NPS

Councils say the Excessive Court’s failure to quash the government’s Airport National Policy Statement (ANPS) backing Heathrow enlargement might convey long-term injury to the health of hundreds of thousands of Londoners.

They warn that giant areas of London and the House Counties shall be affected by noise from the north-west runway.  For many London boroughs it means a substantial improve in the variety of communities affected.

The native authorities had argued that the third runway might solely be constructed by demolishing hundreds of houses, adding giant increases in street visitors and making life noisier and unhealthier for tens of millions of Londoners.

The courtroom has refused all the purposes for judicial evaluation of the ANPS primarily as a result of it has determined that at this policy stage the decision to help a third runway at Heathrow must only meet a low degree of judicial scrutiny.

There shall be another stage the place the injury prompted to life and health and the surroundings by a third runway and its related visitors (injury inflicting air pollution, noise pollution and contributing to climate change) will probably be more intently scrutinised.  Objections to a 3rd runway have to be heard then and any decision to approve will probably be open to challenge by way of the courts.

The councils stated immediately that they might proceed to discover each avenue attainable to protect their residents from the health and environmental penalties of a third runway.

Hillingdon Council Leader, Ray Puddifoot, stated: “As I stated at first of this legal challenge that is just the first spherical in what can be an extended battle that finally we might win. Whilst the courtroom recognised the importance of people’s health and wellbeing brought on by surface entry, air quality and noise points they accepted the Secretary of State for Transport’s argument that whilst there was no lifelike answer to those issues presently they could possibly be dealt with on the subsequent stage of the process (the Improvement Consent Order) and identified that should the Secretary of State grant a Improvement Consent Order it could possibly be the subject of legal challenge on grounds of error of regulation.

“We remain convinced that the devastating consequences of the proposed expansion, which go far beyond the loss of over 1000 homes and 3750 blighted in Hillingdon should not have been put forward based on such a dangerous assumption. Whilst we await the view of our legal team on the next stage of this fight for the avoidance of doubt we have set aside sufficient funding to defend our environment and the health and wellbeing of our people for however long it takes to do so.”

Cllr Ravi Govindia, Leader of Wandsworth Council, stated: “Today’s ruling is hugely disappointing for Londoners. It shows that the Government can drive through expansion plans without properly considering the full environmental and health impacts. But it does not mean the runway will ever be built. It still faces enormous legal obstacles particularly around air pollution.”

The councils say that any new runway would run a very excessive danger of breaching air high quality limits and, until air high quality obligations might be glad, constructing and opening a 3rd runway can be troublesome.

The councils argue that no government might permit a runway to be constructed that would injury the health of 121,000 individuals in the area and contribute to hundreds of premature deaths.

Cllr Gareth Roberts, Chief of Richmond Council, stated: “This isn’t the top of the matter. We defeated a previous government on Heathrow back in 2010. We gained then for our residents and we will win once more in the future. A runway that breaches legal air quality limits simply can’t be constructed and opened. Nothing in at the moment’s ruling modifications that.

“The local authorities have fought a long battle to protect our communities from the airport’s relentless demand for growth. If democratically-elected councils won’t stand up for their residents’ interests and protect their quality of life – who will?”

Cllr Simon Dudley, Chief of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, added: “The underlying obstacles to this runway haven’t changed. Ministers stored communities across south and west London in the dead of night about whether they can be affected by noise.

“The flightpaths have been drawn in such a method that the numbers of individuals affected have been minimised. This meant the health and environmental prices of the north west runway have been understated.

“The five local authorities which brought the challenge are all committed to defending the quality of life of local people. Few, if any, of our communities will escape noise and many will be affected seven days a week.”

Cllr Stephen Cowan, Chief of Hammersmith & Fulham Council, stated: “Ministers might imagine they’ve finished just sufficient by scraping via with this decision however that is hardly reassuring for the hundreds of thousands of people who should put up with a every day food plan of elevated noise and worsening air air pollution.

“It means individuals can haven’t any confidence that major infrastructure selections which can affect the lives of current and future generations will ever be based mostly on full and objective assessments of the results.

“People in this country deserve much more from their politicians. Warm words about  protecting the environment for future generations will fool no one.”

The councils have pledged to take care of detailed scrutiny of all points of the airport’s planning software for the runway (Improvement Consent Order). This can embrace the detail of how the airport intends to satisfy its obligations in key areas akin to noise, air high quality and surface entry.  This detail will probably be subject to examination at the public inquiry stage with potential for additional challenge within the courts.

The Secretary of State’s decision in favour of Heathrow’s north-west runway proposal was challenged by Hillingdon, Wandsworth, Hammersmith and Fulham, Richmond upon Thames and Windsor and Maidenhead councils. They have been joined within the Judicial Evaluate by the Mayor of London and Greenpeace.

Ends

.


Councils dissatisfied by courtroom decision on Heathrow

1st Might 2019

Press launch from Wandsworth Borough Council

They warn that giant areas of London and the House Counties can be affected by noise from the north-west runway.  For a lot of London boroughs it means a considerable improve in the number of communities affected.

The local authorities had argued that the third runway might solely be constructed by demolishing hundreds of houses, adding giant increases in street visitors and making life noisier and unhealthier for tens of millions of Londoners.

The courtroom has refused all the purposes for judicial evaluate of the ANPS primarily as a result of it has decided that at this coverage stage the decision to help a 3rd runway at Heathrow needs solely meet a low degree of judicial scrutiny.

There might be one other stage where the injury prompted to life and health and the setting by a 3rd runway and its related visitors (injury causing air pollution, noise air pollution and contributing to climate change) might be more intently scrutinised.  Objections to runway three have to be heard then and any decision to approve will probably be open to challenge by way of the courts.

The councils stated in the present day that they might proceed to discover every avenue attainable to guard their residents from the health and environmental consequences of a 3rd runway.

Cllr Ravi Govindia, Leader of Wandsworth Council, stated: “Today’s ruling is hugely disappointing for Londoners. It shows that the Government can drive through expansion plans without properly considering the full environmental and health impacts. But it does not mean the runway will ever be built. It still faces enormous legal obstacles particularly around air pollution.”

The councils say that any new runway would run a very high danger of breaching air high quality limits. There’s still no proof as to how air high quality obligations may be glad. This makes it increasingly unlikely that a third runway might ever be built and opened.

The councils argue that no authorities might permit a runway to be constructed that would injury the health of 121,000 individuals in the space and contribute to hundreds of untimely deaths.

Cllr Gareth Roberts, Chief of Richmond Council, stated: “This isn’t the top of the matter. We defeated a previous government on Heathrow back in 2010. We gained then for our residents and we will win once more sooner or later. A runway that breaches legal air high quality limits simply cannot be built and opened. Nothing in immediately’s ruling modifications that.

“The local authorities have fought a long battle to protect our communities from the airport’s relentless demand for growth. If democratically-elected councils won’t stand up for their residents’ interests and protect their quality of life – who will?”

Duncan Sharkey, Managing Director of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, added:“The underlying obstacles to this runway haven’t modified. The Authorities didn’t inform communities across south and west London about how they might be affected by noise and to what extent.

“The flightpaths have been drawn in such a means that the numbers of people affected have been minimised. This meant the health and environmental prices of the north west runway have been understated.

“The five local authorities which brought the challenge are all committed to defending the quality of life of local people. Few, if any, of our communities will escape noise and many will be affected seven days a week.”

The councils have pledged to take care of detailed scrutiny of all points of the airport’s planning software for the runway (Improvement Consent Order). This can embrace the element of how the airport intends to satisfy its obligations in key areas corresponding to noise, air high quality and surface access.  This element might be topic to examination on the public inquiry stage with potential for further challenge in the courts.

The Secretary of State’s decision in favour of Heathrow’s north-west runway proposal was challenged by Hillingdon, Wandsworth, Hammersmith and Fulham, Richmond upon Thames and Windsor and Maidenhead councils. They have been joined within the Judicial Evaluation by the Mayor of London and Greenpeace.


.

See also:

Judges reject judicial assessment challenges towards DfT’s Heathrow 3rd runway NPS

The judges on the High Court have handed down their judgement, which was to reject all of the legal challenges towards the DfT and the Secretary of State for Transport, on the federal government decision to approve a 3rd Heathrow runway, by means of the Airports NPS (Nationwide Policy Assertion). The judges selected to make their ruling solely on the legality, and “rationality” of the DfT decision, ignoring the information and particulars of the Heathrow scheme and the NPS course of – or the areas where related info was ignored by the DfT.  In the view of the judges, the method had been carried out legally. They threw out challenges on air pollution, surface access, noise and habitats – as well as carbon emissions. The latter being on the grounds that the Paris Agreement, although ratified by the UK government, has not been included into UK regulation, so the DfT did not have to think about it. The Paris Agreement requires nations to purpose for less than a worldwide 1.5C rise in temperature, not 2 degrees (as within the present UK Climate Change Act). Learn feedback by Neil Spurrier, a type of making a legal challenge.  There at the moment are more likely to be appeals, maybe even direct to the Supreme Court.

Click on right here to view full story…

Comment by Plan B Earth and Extinction Riot, on Judges’ rejection of Heathrow legal challenges

The High Court dismissed all the legal challenges to the Government’s plans to broaden Heathrow, together with the claims brought by Associates of the Earth and Plan B on the grounds of inconsistency with the Paris Agreement on local weather change. Tim Crosland, Director of Plan B and a legal adviser to Extinction Riot, stated: “…it is increasingly difficult to see how the Government’s reckless plans to expand Heathrow Airport can proceed. Following the recent Extinction Rebellion protests there is widespread recognition that we are in a state of climate and ecological emergency. The Court has upheld Chris Grayling’s surprising contention that the Paris Agreement is “irrelevant” to Government policy on climate change. It ignored the very fact that the Government said in Might last yr that it deliberate to decarbonise the financial system by 2050. As an alternative it accepted Grayling’s argument that the CCC considers the current target of 80% emissions reductions by 2050 to be according to the Paris Agreement. Tomorrow the CCC is predicted to show the fallacy of that place by recommending that the Authorities implement a target of internet zero by 2050,… Since that suggestion is obviously inconsistent with the enlargement of Heathrow, presumably the plans will now have to be reviewed.”

Click here to view full story…

.

.