A high court judge today threw out a legal challenge to the government's plans to build new runways at three airports around London.
But it didn't all go the government's way, the judge ruling that in the case of two airports, Stansted and Luton, full public planning enquiries are needed.
That was a relief to villagers in Essex close to Stansted airport who've been campaigning against plans to fast track the runway without the usual planning process.
Business Correspondent Faisal Islam reports:
The huge explosion in cut price air travel has fuelled extraordinary growth in the airline business, and the Government expects passenger numbers to more than double to 500 million by 2030.
Of that total 300 million will be in and around the capital.
Today's judgement means a significant expansion of capacity in south East england can now take place at London Heathrow, Luton and Stansted.
At Heathrow, the judge ruled plans for a third runway are legal and can go ahead. But plans to expand Luton airport will have to go through the full public consultation process, which could lead to major delays.
And while plans for a second runway at Stansted are legal, the siting of the second runway, two kilometeres from the existing one was ruled unlawful, as again it had not gone through a proper public consultation process.
Needless to say the campaigners and Local Authorities that mounted this legal challenge were declaring victory today.
But the real criticism of the Government came buried deep inside the 109-page ruling, where Mr Justice Sullivan accused the Department for Transport of misleading the courts.
The ruling says that the department failed to reveal to the court that the Treasury was deeply concerned about the commercial viability of Stansted's expansion plans, adding: "Government Departments should remember that their obligation to tell the truth to the Court does not mean that the court need only be told so much of the truth as suits the Government's case and that inconvenient parts of the truth may be omitted from their evidence. A statement that is only partially true is as capable of being misleading as a statement that is untrue."
Unusually strong criticism of government conduct from a High Court judge.
Campaigners have failed in their attempt to bring the airport expansion programme to a complete halt. But the government won't now find it as easy in future to railroad local planning rules in order to fastrack their own favoured projects.
The huge explosion in cut price air travel has fuelled extraordinary growth in the airline business, and the Government expects passenger numbers to more than double to 500 million by 2030.
Of that total 300 million will be in and around the capital.
Today's judgement means a significant expansion of capacity in south East england can now take place at London Heathrow, Luton and Stansted.
At Heathrow, the judge ruled plans for a third runway are legal and can go ahead. But plans to expand Luton airport will have to go through the full public consultation process, which could lead to major delays.
And while plans for a second runway at Stansted are legal, the siting of the second runway, two kilometeres from the existing one was ruled unlawful, as again it had not gone through a proper public consultation process.
Needless to say the campaigners and Local Authorities that mounted this legal challenge were declaring victory today.
But the real criticism of the Government came buried deep inside the 109-page ruling, where Mr Justice Sullivan accused the Department for Transport of misleading the courts.
The ruling says that the department failed to reveal to the court that the Treasury was deeply concerned about the commercial viability of Stansted's expansion plans, adding: "Government Departments should remember that their obligation to tell the truth to the Court does not mean that the court need only be told so much of the truth as suits the Government's case and that inconvenient parts of the truth may be omitted from their evidence. A statement that is only partially true is as capable of being misleading as a statement that is untrue."
Unusually strong criticism of government conduct from a High Court judge.
Campaigners have failed in their attempt to bring the airport expansion programme to a complete halt. But the government won't now find it as easy in future to railroad local planning rules in order to fastrack their own favoured projects.
|
