1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Government did not follow UK policy

Discussion in 'Personal' started by Duke of York, Feb 27, 2020.

  1. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter


    "Heathrow Airport's controversial plans to build a third runway have been thrown into doubt after a court ruling.

    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 has not lodged an appeal.

    The judges said that in future, a third runway could go ahead, as long as it fits with the UK's climate policy.

    The case was brought by environmental groups, councils and the Mayor of London.

    The Court of Appeal found that the government had not followed UK policy when backing the controversial expansion plans.

    It said that the government had a duty to take into account the Paris climate agreement, which seeks to limit global warming.

    It was "legally fatal" to the government's Heathrow expansion policy that it did not take those climate commitments into account, the judges said."

    Am I alone in thinking the government can't tell its arrse from its elbow?
    cissy3 and ajrowing like this.
  2. Kandahar

    Kandahar Star commenter


    I expect that the needed capacity (expansion) will happen elsewhere: Gatwick, Stanstead, Manchester...
  3. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Star commenter

    Wasn't Boris against the expansion of Heathrow and for the construction of a new airport in the Thames estuary?
  4. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    The Heathrow expansion plan was submitted by Theresa May's government, not the current government.

    Boris Johnson has long been an opponent of the expansion - he once said he would lie down in front of the bulldozers to stop the third runway ever being built - so it is of no surprise that he immediately announced that the government would not challenge the court's verdict.

    Possibly, but it is thought that as a result of the judgment, any airport expansion will now have to show that it complies with 2050 zero emission targets, which won't be easy.
  5. Kandahar

    Kandahar Star commenter

    Indeed. It makes more sense to expand Manchester airport into a Hub for the North.
  6. oldsomeman

    oldsomeman Star commenter

    Problem is businessmen/women do not want to land in the north, they want London. Or indeed have to then travel several hours by slow train if forced to travel that way.
    If you want to trade then you have to make sacrifices or do without. At the end of the day we need to do business and can't if folks have to do a massive detour up North.
    There is the alternative that you could take all business, including the government, out of London and move it North, make a new Brazilia or Washington of sorts. But I am sure there might be a lot of problems with that, not the least it would be more polluting than building a 3 rd runway.
    smilingisgoodforyou likes this.
  7. Kandahar

    Kandahar Star commenter

    HS2 - don't forget!

    But yes - I'm in agreement with you. It's London and the South business travellers want. I still think Runway 3 will go ahead - a modified version in line with the legislation.
  8. ajrowing

    ajrowing Lead commenter

    Its all part of his masterplan so he doesn't have to lie in that ditch to stop the expansion.
  9. gainly

    gainly Star commenter

    Indeed he was and claimed he would lie down in front of the bulldozers to stop Heathrow expansion. Of course when it came to the vote in parliament he managed to be conveniently out of the country so didn't have to vote.
  10. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    I can't see it makes a lot of difference which government was in charge at the time. Do governments not take advice from who know what the policies are?
  11. LondonCanary

    LondonCanary Star commenter

    Based on this ruling there can be no airport expansion anywhere in the UK, if we are to hit carbon zero by 2050, as per the Climate Change Act.
    Kandahar likes this.
  12. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    Expansion of Heathrow is a private, not a government, initiative. It is up to Heathrow to ensure that its plans are lawful in meeting environment pollution and noise levels. Heathrow Ltd was taken to court by the Mayor of London, various environmental groups and a number of West London councils. The government is not directly involved.
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2020
    lexus300 likes this.
  13. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    Isn't it also up to the government to check the plans meet the standards before deciding to approve the plans?
  14. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    It will be when the plans are submitted, but that is probably now a long way off. They are only at the public consultation stage at present and (unless the Supreme Court overturns today's decision) the plans will have to be revised to show how they can meet the 2050 zero emission target.
  15. ajrowing

    ajrowing Lead commenter

    Well that is excellent news.
  16. ajrowing

    ajrowing Lead commenter

    Can you explain to me why therefore there was a vote in the House of Commons on 26th June 2018 on Heathrow expansion? And why such a fuss about a particular MP missing the vote if the expansion has nothing to do with the government?

    Why are the BBC reporting that the "government's decision to allow the expansion of Heathrow was illegal"?

  17. colpee

    colpee Star commenter

    florian gassmann likes this.
  18. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    Yes, although it isn't actually very difficult to check Hansard for the date in question.

    The vote was not to approve Heathrow expansion, but to approve a statement laid before the house on "Airports: A National Policy Statement"., which included the government's preference for one of the three schemes for Heathrow suggested by The Airports Commission. "Preference", note, not "consent".

    The introduction to the vote, from the inimitable Chris Grayling, made it clear that "the next step is for applicants to develop their plans, and then carry out further public consultation as required under the Act". Heathrow Ltd have now done that, and the plan was successfully challenged as failing to take into account the government's stated objective in achieving zero carbon emissions by 2050 - something that all firms and, indeed, all of us will have to do in future.

    Grayling went on to say "Any application for development consent will of course be considered carefully and with an open mind based on the evidence provided, including through a public examination by the independent planning inspectorate, before a final decision is made".

    The government merely said that they preferred one particular scheme. However, even that much was deemed illegal because the court decided that all such proposals must in future take account of the 2008 Climate Change Act.

    As Grayling pointed out, there were (and still are) a number of other steps to go through "before a final decision is made".
  19. Jamvic

    Jamvic Star commenter

    And they’ll only have to wait until 2035-2040....maybe!
  20. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    Where do we stand with regard to the Climate Change Act, if some idiot decides to install a vanity high-speed train set that consumes significantly more energy than is usually required to travel by train?

Share This Page