Campaigners opposed to Heathrow third runway lose legal case

Environmental campaigners and London boroughs opposed to the expansion of London’s Heathrow Airport have failed in their bid to block the project. In two judgments handed down this morning, judges dismissed a total of five claims brought by more than ten separate claimants. The claims all challenged the legality of the government’s decision to back the third-runway project. The cases were brought by the London boroughs of Hillingdon, Wandsworth, Richmond Upon Thames, Windsor and Maidenhead, Hammersmith and Fulham, and the mayor of London. Hillingdon is the borough in which Heathrow is situated, and the other boroughs are adjacent. The environmental campaigner claimants were Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Plan B Earth. They challenged the decision of the government to give the green light to the project on the grounds of climate change, air quality, surface access, noise and habitats. One of the claims was brought by the promotors of a rival scheme to the third runway, and argued that the government had wrongly preferred the Heathrow scheme. Out of the 22 grounds of claim argued in the cases, 19 were dismissed as ‘unarguable’. The remaining three grounds, though arguable, were also dismissed. Paris Agreement One of the environmental groups main arguments was that then secretary of state for transport Chris Grayling erred when he backed the project because he failed to take into account the Paris Agreement on climate change. But in today’s ruling, the judges hearing the case found that, as the agreement is not part of UK domestic law, Grayling did not act unlawfully when he ignored it. The judges dismissed the campaigners’ point as “unarguable”. In a statement, Friends of the Earth slammed the ruling as “legally and morally wrong, and out of step with the world”. Will Rundle, the NGO’s head of legal, said they were considering appealing against the judgment. “Heathrow airport is already the single biggest climate polluter in the UK. Expansion will only exacerbate the problem,” he said. “Parliament’s decision to green light Heathrow was morally wrong, but today we believe the courts have got it legally wrong too. We are examining the judgement in detail and will consider all options, including the possibility of appealing.” Planning case At its heart, the challenge is a large planning case, but one that was sent to the secretary of state for transport Chris Grayling, instead of (as is usually the case) the secretary of state for communities and local government. It concerns Grayling’s decision in June 2018 to designate the third runway under the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), or solution to the problem of runway capacity in the South East of England. The ANPS is part of a planning process that sets the framework for granting the project a development consent order — in effect planning permission. Grayling made the announcement on 25 June 2018 after a period of consideration and a parliamentary debate. All of the claimants in this case argue that his reasoning was legally flawed, and all of the claims were dismissed.