A number of protest groups are seeking a judicial review of the UK government's White Paper on long-term airport expansion that was published late last year.
The challenge is being led by groups campaigning against the expansion of London Heathrow, Stansted and Luton airports, alongside two local councils near Heathrow. The White Paper called for a second runway at London Stansted around 2011-12 and envisaged a third runway for London Heathrow in the 2015-20 timeframe, provided certain environmental targets could be met. Luton is also earmarked for a runway extension in the proposals.
The paper also made clear the UK government's support for a relaxation of the segregated mode rules at Heathrow designed as a noise abatement measure. This system sees one runway used for landings and one for take-offs, with a daily switch around at 1500h. The paper indicated that a relaxation at peak periods to allow mixed-mode operations was the preferred option as far as the government is concerned.
The challenge is being made on four points. The organisations maintain that the UK government:
failed to provide the public with information about alternative proposals for new airports in the Thames Gateway to the east of London; did not make clear that in the consultation document that the ending of runway alteration could be a short-term alternative to a third runway at Heathrow; did not give people in the consultation document the opportunity, favoured in the White Paper, of commenting on the proposed runway extension at Luton; ignored the absence of a commercial justification for the second Stansted runway, contrary to the government's own ground rules for the consultation.The groups believe that the government had information about the viability of new airports in the Thames Gateway that was not made available during the consultation process, and are arguing that people were therefore not in a position to make a proper assessment of these options when responding to the consultation. The paper proposed one option in this area, Cliffe, but this was ruled out on environmental and cost grounds.
The coalition's case is more a question of procedure than of where to add extra capacity. The protest lobbies emphasise that their challenge does not mean that they are in favour of building a new airport in the Thames Gateway.
The UK government has already suffered a defeat in the courts before the publication of the White Paper. In November 2002 it was ordered to extend the consultation period by seven months after a judicial review found that it had acted unlawfully in excluding London Gatwick from the consultation process.
The government has filed its response and the case is now before a judge who will consider the application and determine whether there is an answerable case that requires a judicial review. If the answer is yes, this would in all likelihood lead to the case coming to the High Court in June this year.
Carol Barbone, campaign director of pressure group Stop Stansted Expansion, warns: "We will fight the government every inch of the way." John Stewart, chairman of Heathrow pressure group HACAN ClearSkies, complains that the proposals for runway alteration had "emerged from nowhere".
The government had indicated before the publication of the White Paper that it favoured a review of the Cranford Agreement that forbids take-offs in an easterly direction from Heathrow's northern runway. This is seen as a prerequisite for mixed-mode operations, which would open up crucial peak-time slots that could be given to US carriers excluded from Heathrow under the current UK-US bilateral.
COLIN BAKER LONDON
Source: Airline Business
