Forum Topic

Heathrow Challenge Success (For Now ..)

Heathrow Airport: Plans for third runway plans in tatters after legal defeat:http://news.sky.com/story/heathrow-airport-plans-for-third-runway-plans-in-tatters-after-legal-defeat-11944267

Sue Hammond ● 2298d20 Comments

This is great news.  Thank you to everyone who campaigned against this, in particular HACAN (Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise).  Formed in the 1970s to give a voice to residents under the Heathrow flight path.

Martine Guy ● 2297d

As will the next "super-virus"

Bunny Payne ● 2297d

I think that Corona will fizzle out like AIDS and SARS.I think that R3 will also fizzle out albeit only for a few years.Gauranteed R3 will be back on the table in "most" of our lifetimes.

Simon Knight ● 2298d

Re Alexander's point about the longevity of Forum members. I remember going to a Heathrow expansion exhibition at the Wetlands Centre. Must have been in 2008, 2009, back in the days when Heathrow insisted that the noise in Putney wasn't loud enough to justify them showing up here. Do you remember all the arguments about decibels and the UK was claiming that higher levels were acceptable than did most other countries.It was only Justine's efforts which forced Heathrow to concede they must come here too and face residents.I went with a Putney friend (my age). We looked at each other and said, "perhaps we'll be dead". Sadly she died 18 months ago.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 2298d

I think were getting into acute v chronic risks there, David?

Michael Ixer ● 2298d

Alexander. A good point, the Paris agreement does constrain the government provided they don't backtrack on it ...

Michael Ixer ● 2298d

"I wouldn't want to stop others flying."Rather depends on how the current coronavirus problem pans out.

David Ainsworth ● 2298d

So long as the government concurs with today's Supreme Court decision, Heathrow Ltd will have its hands tied, even if it were to win a case in the SC. The Paris agreement on atmospheric pollution targets binds the government's hands. It is more important than anything the EU says or does. Anyway, EU laws soon will not apply to the UK.My hunch is that Johnson will let the Heathrow matter slide while pressure builds up (notably among his backbenchers) for airport expansion elsewhere - most probably at Gatwick but also at sites in the North.Whatever happens, expect more protracted inquiries and arguments. Perish the thought, but this means that a good proportion of Forum members may not live to see a Third Runway, even if my analysis is faulty.

Alexander MacLeod ● 2298d

Sue. I'd agree with you about the legal wrangling, unless the government passes legislation to short circuit it. My understanding is Johnson is supporting HS2 because he thinks he's endearing the Labour northern voters by doing this. He may be misguided in that; I suspect the opposing LHR was just for the purposes of becoming Mayor of London? I believe he managed to be in Afghanistan of somewhere when the last vote in Parliament on LHR took place so I assume he doesn't feel that strong about it. (Must admit I haven't double checked those points ... did them from memory.) Yes, I can understand those living near LHR have reasons for opposing it, as do those living in the path of HS2 oppose that. I guess in a democracy there are winners and losers - as with the Brexit vote 🙂

Michael Ixer ● 2298d

@ MichaelBoris campaigned against Heathrow expansion so I can't see him giving way on it now. The legal wrangling will probably go on for another decade and it's anybody's guess what happens then. It's not just environmentally planes being an issue, what about the destruction of the surrounding villages?  I have a very close friend living in one of them!I really cannot understand why Boris is in favour of HS2 which in my opinion is of little benefit to the people living in the Midlands and the North, and a huge waste of money.

Sue Hammond ● 2298d

Sue. I'm ambivalent on LHR expansion other than climate grounds, if we have environmentally friendly planes I wouldn't see a problem. One of the reasons I moved to Putney in the late 70s was because it was fairly close to LHR and I was travelling a lot by air to Europe and Scotland, and have done on and off till a few years ago. These days I try and travel by train. My last flight, for a science trip to was Belfast 6 months ago; train and ferry weren't viable for a long weekend. However, I don't see I'm paranoid about this, if environmental issues can be resolved I wouldn't want to stop others flying. I was just pointing out for those unhappy with LHR expansion the UK government is the last point of call post Brexit. If industry wants LHR expansion Johnson and the Conservatives will be under a lit of pressure if they resist it. Just a personal opinion. 

Michael Ixer ● 2298d

This morning Today broadcast three interviews, not a debate. John Holland-Kaye and Andrew Adonis desperately arguing for expansion. Justine speaking against. So two vs one, which I do not think is fair and unbiased. And, of course, no mention of the life-spoiling impact of a 56% increase in flights.I don't know how or if noise fits into the climate argument. J H-K was on Today Feb 4, saying LHR would plant billions of trees to offset its carbon emissions. Didn't say where and again no mention of noise.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 2298d

And this from the BBC news website:"The government's Heathrow's expansion decision was unlawful because it did not take climate commitments into account, the Court of Appeal said.Heathrow said it would challenge the decision, but the government said it would not appeal.The judges said that in future, a third runway could go ahead, as long as it fits with the UK's climate policy."

Ivonne Holliday ● 2298d

No, Sue.  We are on course to leave the EU with no deal.  Jobs need to be created - and fast - in order to give the idea of prosperity.  Hence the desperation for HS2 and the expansion of Heathrow.Boris does not want the 3rd runway?  I do not believe this for one minute, sadly.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2298d

Why would Boris do this when he doesn't want the 3rd runway? Am I missing something or are you both paranoid?

Sue Hammond ● 2298d

Jonathan. Sadly you're correct. The current government could just construct a law that specifically enables the expansion of LHR, I don't think it would breach any international treaties such as ECHR, WTO, etc, this taking any options away from the supreme court which can only make rulings within prevailing law. Iplicitly, anyone voting for Brexit potentially enabled LHR expansion. It's not something I have strong feelings on other than for climate reasons air travel should be reduced. 

Michael Ixer ● 2298d

I rather think Boris will be relieved by this decision.  I don't expect his Government to put up much of a fight for the expansion to go ahead. Bulldozers on hold.

Sue Hammond ● 2298d

With Brexit the government will no longer be bound by the EU’s environmental standards so despite their climate change commitments they may well find a way round this if they want to. I see this decision is to be appealed at the Supreme Court, a body some in government seem to want to abolish (it’s a Blair era invention).The anti expansion battle is far from over. Anyone taking odds on Boris going anywhere near a bulldozer any time soon??

Jonathan Callaway ● 2298d

Thanks to Ravi Govindia, Wandsworth Council, Sadiq Khan, the several other borough who joined in the fight against a 56 per cent increase in flights over our heads.And thanks to Justine Greening who fought so hard for 15 years - going back to Blair and Brown - against a further blight on our quality of life.But while I feel a momentary feeling of relief, we mustn't be complacent. The expansionists will never give up.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 2298d

And here too:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693Excellent news.  Let us see what happens next.  I expect the review of the judiciary is very much a priority for this government, which is not good news. We shall see!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2298d