Aviation White Paper faces court challenge

Groups set to mount a Judicial Review

The Government’s Aviation White Paper (1) is set to be challenged in the High Court. The organisations mounting the Judicial Review will hold a Press Conference at midday in the House of Commons on Monday 8th March (2).

The Judicial Review challenge is being mounted by airport campaign groups representing communities around Stansted, Luton and Heathrow and by the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Hillingdon (3).

The High Court challenge will highlight four key flaws:

  • the Government failed to provide the public with information about alternative proposals for new airports at Thames Reach and on the Isle of Sheppey and failed to give proper consideration to those options (4);

  • the consultation document did not make clear that the ending of runway alternation at Heathrow could be a short-term alternative to a third runway (5);

  • the consultation document failed to give people the opportunity of commenting on the proposal, favoured in the White Paper, of going for an extended runway at Luton (6);

  • the White Paper ignores the absence of a commercial justification for a second Stansted runway, contrary to the Government’s own ground-rules for the consultation (7).

Carol Barbone, Campaign Director of Stop Stansted Expansion, said, “We are determined that our community will not be destroyed by this flawed White Paper. We will fight the Government every inch of the way.”

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “People in West London are furious that they were not given the chance to comment on plans to end runway alternation at Heathrow. These plans emerged from nowhere in the White Paper. Yet runway alternation is a life-saver for many in West London.”

Roger Wood, speaking for LADACAN, said, “As far as we are concerned, the Government has pulled a fast one. People under the Luton flight path were consulted on options for expansion at the airport, but not on the runway proposal that finally emerged in the White Paper!”

Notes for Editors

  1. The aviation White Paper was published by the Department for Transport on 16th December 2003.

  2. The Press Conference will be held in Room W1 (just off Westminster Hall) in the House of Commons. It will be hosted by John McDonnell MP (Labour, Hayes and Harlington) whose constituency includes Heathrow Airport.

  3. A Judicial Review must be mounted within 3 months of the publication of a White Paper and can only challenge specific shortcomings in the decision making process

  4. The applicants argue that the Government had information about the viability of new airports at Thames Reach and the Isle of Sheppey that it did not set out in its consultation document. Therefore, the applicants argue, people were not in a position to make a proper assessment of these options when responding to the consultation. The process was at fault. The fact that the applicants have included this point in their challenge does not mean they favour building an airport at Thames Reach or Sheppey.

  5. Runway alternation means that people living in West London within about 8 miles of Heathrow only get planes landing over the head for half the day. Planes switch runways at 3pm. The applicants are arguing that there was no indication in the consultation that runway alternation was in any way an alternative to a 3rd runway. Yet the White Paper, which put the proposal for a 3rd runway on the back-burner, contained the proposal that runway alternation could be ended at Heathrow.

  6. The consultation document contained two options for expansion of Luton Airport: the construction of a replacement southern runway; and a new runway on a different alignment. It did not include details of plans to extend the current runway, the proposal that emerged in the White Paper. Therefore, the applicants argue, people did not have the opportunity to comment on the proposal that emerged.

  7. The consultation documents made it clear that commercial viability was a “hurdle which must be passed for new and existing airport sites”. BAA advised the Government that a second Stansted runway would only be commercially viable if it could be cross-subsidised by Heathrow and Gatwick revenues but the regulator (the CAA) ruled against the option of cross-subsidisation by BAA during the consultation process. Despite this clear impasse, the Government has stated in the White Paper that a second Stansted runway should be built by 2011 or 2012.

For further information contact:

Richard Buxton, the solicitor taking this case forward — Tel: 01223 328933
Carol Barbone, Campaign Director, Stop Stansted Expansion — Tel: 0777 552 3091 or 01279 870558
John Stewart, Chair HACAN ClearSkies — Tel: 0207 737 6641 or 07957 385650
Roger Wood, LADACAN spokesperson — Tel: 0777 615 3299 or 01438 833 146
John Davis, LADACAN spokesperson — Tel: 01582 713535