Court of Appeal halts LHR third runway

Old Feb 27, 2020, 5:07 am
  #31  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: LON
Programs: Mucci, BAEC, Eurostar
Posts: 3,364
Originally Posted by wb1969
Not surprised. Double standards though. Courts block a desperately needed 3rd runway. Meantime HS2, which will go down as the most expensive waste of public money in history, goes unchallenged in the courts and full steam ahead.
Apples and Pears. This is an aviation-related forum so we're bound to have that kind of argument, but realistically it's completely different.

French cities which have had a TGV have been doing much better than those who didn't so it actually makes sense in the long term.

Environmentalists will be challenging HS2 also, and HAL will appeal this decision so don't count either of those as done or cancelled.
dajdavies, wrp96 and etiene like this.
alex67500 is offline  
Old Feb 27, 2020, 5:14 am
  #32  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/GfL), LH FTL, SPG Plat
Posts: 52
Let's be honest that is all due to the power and influence of the wealthy residents of South West London. I find it difficult to believe that if LHR were situated in, say, south-east London we wouldn't have had a third runway 5 times over by now. It's just ironic that statistically it is these same SW residents who then fly most, whether for business or pleasure. But then they are also best positioned (financially) to pay the higher fares that must result from artificially limiting capacity in the face of growing demand. I'm sorry but to me (given that LHR has been around and expanding for longer than most people would have been resident in SW London) this is the apogee of nimbyism

In a further irony BA are another winner as they now maintain a perpetual lock on their relatively dominant position at LHR. No wonder they have been a recent vocal critic of the whole project
dajdavies, wemyss, T8191 and 5 others like this.
contrails7 is online now  
Old Feb 27, 2020, 5:19 am
  #33  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Programs: BA, Virgin, Lufthansa
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by alexwuk
Will HAL finally get their act together and provide the money to build the Southern and Western Rail Links? If the issues is carbon emissions associated with the overall facility I'd have thought making everyone not in Central london drive to the ariport can't exactly be help your argument.
Western Rail link is coming, it's just taking a long time (considering it's only 6.5km and most of it is underground)

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runnin...k-to-heathrow/
dajdavies is offline  
Old Feb 27, 2020, 5:21 am
  #34  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: London, UK
Programs: BAEC GGL/GFl, HH Diamond, BW Diamond, Virgin Voyages Deep Blue Extra, Blue Peter Badge Holder
Posts: 3,939
The Government's decision not to appeal stated that the manifesto makes clear any Heathrow expansion will be Indistry led, I.e. they support HAL appealing, but wont do it themselves.

This avoids the gov getting egg or face with the Supreme Court again, and doesnt stop the Gov taking other measures either before or subsequently- weather that is passing legislation to bypass the decision or undertaking a review on the climate impact of Heathrow expansion to fulfil the requirement of the judges decision for example.

Last edited by navylad; Feb 27, 2020 at 6:29 am
navylad is offline  
Old Feb 27, 2020, 5:22 am
  #35  
PxC
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Bristol
Programs: BA Silver, Hilton Gold, Caesars Diamond
Posts: 957
Originally Posted by Camflyer
So LHR is going to stop at 99.5% capacity for the foreseeable future - or until another PM comes along

If this is about the "climate emergency" then we shod be stopping all airport expansions but to single out Heathrow while allowing ithers doesn't make sense when it is the one in most need of extra capacity.
Bristol Airport expansion delayed as well

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.t...imate-protests

Last edited by PxC; Feb 27, 2020 at 6:19 am
PxC is offline  
Old Feb 27, 2020, 5:29 am
  #36  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: London
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 100
Agreed - I live in West London (W4 - generally a really lovely place to live, but so much NIMBYism) and the amount of agitation and protesting I've seen is mad. They're all against it until they realise that no 3R = higher prices and/or having to travel to LGW or worse.

To say nothing of the fact that the 3R will lead to fewer flight paths over "my" part of London, not more. I'm obviously biased as I couldn't give a hoot about plane noise - I'm more likely to go "ooh, where's that one coming in from?" and pull out FlightRadar than moan - but it's really not as big a deal as people want to make out. As contrails7 said - if you live near an airport, expect plane noise. What did they expect?
daftboy, wrp96, LiHS and 3 others like this.

Last edited by NWIFlyer; Feb 27, 2020 at 5:49 am Reason: Remove quote from deleted post
xarantine is offline  
Old Feb 27, 2020, 5:59 am
  #37  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TNR
Programs: BAEC Silver, *A Gold
Posts: 237
Good,
It's already nerve racking enough getting to LHR on the M25 . Never knowing if it's going to be clear or not, constant problems between J10 and 12.
In my opinion the last thing they need is to increase capacity on the already failing transport infrastructure around the M25.
Just my opinion.
Schind and Captain Walker like this.
ironmouse is offline  
Old Feb 27, 2020, 6:11 am
  #38  
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Programs: BAEC GGL
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by UKtravelbear
The Government don't need to appeal to the Supreme Court

They can - if they wanted to - pass a 'not withstanding' one line bill that disapplies the climate legislation as far as LHR expansion is concerned.
Correction: *parliament* could pass a one line bill. I'm no Boris supporter and recognise that hypocrisy is normally no barrier etc., but I suspect Boris does not want to get up in parliament and propose legislation he has consistently opposed previously, promoting a huge infrastructure project in the South having just said he's going to rebalance the economy to the North.
abligh is offline  
Old Feb 27, 2020, 6:17 am
  #39  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: London, UK
Programs: BAEC GGL/GFl, HH Diamond, BW Diamond, Virgin Voyages Deep Blue Extra, Blue Peter Badge Holder
Posts: 3,939
Originally Posted by abligh
Correction: *parliament* could pass a one line bill. I'm no Boris supporter and recognise that hypocrisy is normally no barrier etc., but I suspect Boris does not want to get up in parliament and propose legislation he has consistently opposed previously, promoting a huge infrastructure project in the South having just said he's going to rebalance the economy to the North.
would be a Government motion, requiring a vote of parliament if we want to be pedant, and Boris doesnt need to propose it (indeed it is unlikely any PM would be proposing it- would be for a minister from DfT).

Given that part of the LHR expansion bid was more domestic connections including to the north (such as LPL for example) it is easy to spin it to be good for the north too.

Last edited by navylad; Feb 27, 2020 at 6:24 am
navylad is offline  
Old Feb 27, 2020, 6:17 am
  #40  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Vale of Glamorgan
Programs: BAEC Gold
Posts: 3,041
I, for one (and I'm sure I'm in a minority on this forum), would much rather have green fields than yet more concrete and aviation fumes and noise. I'd like to see Heathrow become better, not bigger, and I'm more than happy to see Schiphol, Frankfurt and the middle eastern hubs take LHR's potential future business.
Misco60 is offline  
Old Feb 27, 2020, 6:19 am
  #41  
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by pauldb
The judgement doesn't kill R3, it just means the government must reivse the Airports National Policy Statement to take account of the Paris Agreement. I can imagine there are all manor of fudges that could be included to meet this requirement, if the government wants to.
This is spot on. As noted in the summary, all the Court can look at here is (essentially) whether the process has been followed correctly. Here, said process requires an explanation of how the policy decision has considered the requirements of Government policy on climate change. That explanation was missing, thus the relevant process has not been followed correctly. There could probably have just been a couple of paragraphs saying (this is an example, not a statement of fact so not looking to debate the accuracy of it!) "it's compatible with climate change policy because the additional aircraft are more efficient, holding and taxi times which waste fuel will be reduced and we'll also plant 8,000,000 trees so overall it's carbon neutral" and all would likely have been fine. The Court itself has said:
Our decision should be properly understood. We have not decided, and could not decide, that there will be no third runway at Heathrow. We have not found that a national policy statement supporting this project is necessarily incompatible with the United Kingdoms commitment to reducing carbon emissions and mitigating climate change under the Paris Agreement, or with any other policy the Government may adopt or international obligation it may undertake. The consequence of our decision is that the Government will now have the opportunity to reconsider the ANPS in accordance with the clear statutory requirements that Parliament has imposed (paragraph 285).
On that point, Government not appealing is likely because they don't need to. The Court also said, expanding on the final sentence above:

The parties have had an opportunity in the light of our draft judgments to make submissions to us on the appropriate remedy to reflect the conclusions we have reached. In the light of those submissions, we have concluded that the appropriate remedy is a declaration, the effect of which will be to declare the designation decision unlawful and to prevent the ANPS from having any legal effect unless and until the Secretary of State has undertaken a review of it in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions, including the provisions of section 6, 7 and 9 of the Planning Act 2008. Any such review would have to be conducted in accordance with the judgment of this court. The initiation, scope and timescale of any review must and will be a matter for the Secretary of State to decide (paragraphs 279 to 280).
To me that reads as though once the Secretary of State has revised the ANPS to include the climate change policy consideration requirement it's then good to go. The decision here is not saying no third runway, it's saying no third runway until you go away and do a bit more work on the ANPS. At which point, they can press on unless there is then another challenge that the requirement still hasn't been met. There's therefore not much point appealing, just get on and revise the ANPS instead as instructed by the Court. I wouldn't read anything at all into the decision not to appeal as regards Government appetite for a third runway. If they don't bother revising the ANPS as instructed though then it's a very different matter!
littlefish, Tobias-UK and navylad like this.
taranty is offline  
Old Feb 27, 2020, 6:24 am
  #42  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by ironmouse
It's already nerve racking enough getting to LHR on the M25 . Never knowing if it's going to be clear or not, constant problems between J10 and 12.
I know what you mean, but I'm sure part of the 3rd runway proposal was to "fix" that section of the M25 - I seem to remember an animation which showed the proposed new layout of that part of the M25.
Captain Walker is offline  
Old Feb 27, 2020, 6:27 am
  #43  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SE1, London
Posts: 23,620
Global Britain 😂😂

Will be fascinating to see how Johnson approaches this. IIRC he was supposed to lie down in front of the diggers to stop the 3rd runway? Will he stop it permanently (if Cummings allows him, of course).
Swanhunter is offline  
Old Feb 27, 2020, 6:28 am
  #44  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by Camflyer
So LHR is going to stop at 99.5% capacity for the foreseeable future - or until another PM comes along

If this is about the "climate emergency" then we shod be stopping all airport expansions but to single out Heathrow while allowing ithers doesn't make sense when it is the one in most need of extra capacity.
It will still be at 99.5% capacity after its built. HAL will sweat the assets to the max
Misco60 and navylad like this.
Swissroll is offline  
Old Feb 27, 2020, 6:31 am
  #45  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: EDI
Programs: AA: Life time PLT; HH Diamond
Posts: 338
This will suit the government's purpose. "Level up" UK if he can, not investing even more in the south east while the rest suffer
wemyss is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.