The High Court (Carnwath LJ, [2010] EWHC 626 (Admin)) today gave judgment in judicial review proceedings brought by the London Borough of Hillingdon and others challenging the decisions of the Secretary of State for Transport contained entitled ‘Britain’s Transport Infrastructure - Adding Capacity at Heathrow: Decisions Following Consultation’ and announced on 15 January 2009. In that decision the Secretary of State confirmed the Government’s policy support for a third runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow.

The Claimants (the London Boroughs of Hillingdon, Hounslow, Richmond-upon-Thames, Wandsworth, Hammersmith & Fulham, the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, Greenpeace Ltd, WWF-UK, NoTRAG, HACAN ClearSkies and the CPRE) alleged that the consultation process was unfair, failed to take into account relevant matters and was insufficiently reasoned. Transport for London, and Interested Party, in the proceedings supported the challenge in so far as it related to surface access issues.

The High Court ruled that there were defects in the reasoning of the Secretary of State on surface access issues but that the critical issue was the status of the January 2009 Decisions. The Court ruled that:

“96. ...the effect of the 2009 Decisions at the time they were made has been overtaken, as an issue, by two important developments since the proceedings began:

i) The bringing into operation of the relevant provisions of the [Planning] 2008 Act, taken with the Secretary of State’s commitment to the preparation of an Airports National Policy Statement under the Act, and his disavowal of any present intention to rely on section 12(1) to import pre-commencement policy;

ii) The CCC’s [Climate Change Committee’s] December report on the 2050 cap, which on its face raises serious issues about the overall aviation growth assumptions on which the 2003 ATWP was based.

97. The first point provides the effective answer to the second. The preparation of the Airports NPS will necessarily involve a review of all the relevant policy issues, including the impact of climate change policy (specifically identified as an issue in 2008 Act s 5(8)). It also provides the answer to the defects which I have identified in the Secretary of State’s reasoning on the third condition relating to surface access.”

The issue of relief and costs has been reserved.

Nathalie Lieven QC and David Forsdick were part of the team of Counsel appearing for the Claimants. James Maurici was part of the team of Counsel appearing for the Secretary of State.

Please click here for the full Judgement.

search news