Heathrow third runway: 'the struggle continues', say opponents

‘I now call on all public bodies not to waste any more taxpayers’ money or seek to further delay this vital project,’ said transport secretary Chris Grayling

Opponents of expansion at Heathrow have vowed to appeal after all five legal challenges against a third runway were thrown out at the High Court.

Environmental campaigners, local authorities and proponents of an alternative runway plan had sought judicial reviews against the government’s proposals.

A third runway, due to open in 2026, would increase takeoffs and landings at the airport from the current limit of 480,000 movements each year to around 740,000.

The claimants argument that the transport secretary, Chris Grayling, had ignored the Paris accord on climate change. But the judges said he did not act unlawfully – and that the issue would be considered again at the development consent order (planning permission) stage.

The judges also rejected claims that Mr Grayling had failed to take fully into account the effects the third runway would have on air quality.

Nor were the Department for Transport’s analyses of noise at, and surface access to, an expanded Heathrow at fault.

Mr Grayling welcomed the judgment, saying: “The expansion of Heathrow is vital and will provide a massive economic boost to businesses and communities across the length and breadth of Britain, all at no cost to the taxpayer and within our environmental obligations.

“I welcome the court’s judgment today. It makes clear we followed a robust and legally sound process throughout.

“I now call on all public bodies not to waste any more taxpayers’ money or seek to further delay this vital project which will benefit every corner of the United Kingdom.”

A spokesman for Heathrow said: “We are delighted with today’s ruling which is a further demonstration that the debate on Heathrow expansion has been had and won, not only in parliament, but in the courts also.

“We are getting on with delivering the once-in-a-generation project that will connect Britain to global growth, providing thousands of new jobs and an economic boost for this country and its future generations.”

Parmjit Dhanda, executive director of the Back Heathrow campaign, welcomed what he called “a clear and categoric judgment”. He called for scrutiny of local authorities “who have wasted millions and million of pounds of their taxpayers’ money on this”.

But campaigners stressed that the court’s only concern was whether the transport secretary’s choice of the third runway, and the process which led to it, was legally flawed.

The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, whose Hayes & Harlington constituency includes Heathrow, said: “The government has got off the hook because they are not willing to recognise Paris agreement in law.

“Obviously, there will now be appeals, as it is matter of common sense that Paris agreement must be taken into account in full.”

Twickenham resident Neil Spurrier, who brought his own judicial review, told The Independent: “An appeal is certainly possible. I cannot see that it will comply with the emissions requirements and climate change obligations, particularly if other airports are going to be expanded.

“The struggle does indeed continue.”

Separately, the judges rejected claims from Heathrow Hub, which wants to extend the northern runway rather than build a new one, that the transport secretary’s choice of the third-runway option was “manifestly bogus”.

A Heathrow Hub spokesperson said: “We will review the judgement and consider our options going forward. The Heathrow Hub consortium continues to believe that its proposal is cheaper, quicker to build and quieter than Heathrow airport’s third runway.

“An extended runway is the most innovative option for airport expansion not just at Heathrow, but at other international airports as they seek to increase capacity.”