Marie Woolf
Win a fitness package worth more than £3,000
GOVERNMENT proposals for a third runway at Heathrow airport are facing a possible legal challenge that could jeopardise the multi-billion-pound plan.
Residents living under the flight path, local councils and environmental groups are consulting lawyers.
Greenpeace is also seeking a judicial review.They believe there are strong grounds for arguing that the Department for Transport (DfT) consultation process is so flawed that it is not valid.
Lawyers are examining evidence that the government may have broken the Cabinet Office code on consultations and omitted alarming evidence about the effect of the runway on climate change and air quality from extra traffic.
In addition, they are examining the decision by BAA, which runs Heathrow, to pour millions of pounds into the Crossrail train link across London.
Documents obtained by Justine Greening, Conservative MP for Putney, show that research into the effects of an extra runway on emissions of nitrogen dioxide, the greenhouse gas, was not included in the final consultation.
The impact on air quality of extra traffic generated by a new runway was also omitted in the consultation document, Adding Capacity at Heathrow.
The Cabinet Office code says consultation must be “clear, concise and widely accessible”. But local people have complained that parts of the document, including maps and tables, are confusing.
The 2M campaign, which represents local councils in London, is also consulting lawyers about taking the government to judicial review.
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
05/2005
£13,500
08/2008
£109,950
2006
£10,750
Great car insurance deals online
£Excellent+ executive benefits
Torres and Partners
London
£49,229 - £62,035 pro rata
Charity Commission
London/Liverpool/Taunton
Alstom Power
Europe
Six Figure
Rolls Royce
Midlands/Europe
From £89,950
Great Investment, River Views
Special Offers now available
New Year in the USA!
.
Cruise the Islands of Hawaii - Pride of America
List your property with two leading travel websites
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths
News International associated websites: Globrix | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
I truly cannot believe the ignorance of some of your correspondence. In fact I am suspicious of the comments supporting the development of Heathrow. Are they paid by the BAA to write such tripe (it would not surprise me at all, BAA will do anything)? Their comments seem unreal. 'Heathrow' is in the wrong place. Always has been. A brand new airport is needed one that does not need to have planes criss crossing over one of the most important cities in the world. An airport with direct RAIL links to Paris, Brussels etc eliminating the need for so called 'local flights'. It's nothing to do with NIMBYS. You should investigate these people I bet they have some deep hidden links with BAA or the airport industry.
Ralph Doyle, Richmond, UK
The point is that noise and polution will affect hundreds of thousands of people. These people were told by BAA that there will be no 3rd runway... and here we are. Anyone who does not understand that should go an rent a house under the exisitng flight path bringing their kids and partners and give feedback a month later. I am almost sure the tune of their support would change slightly to put it nicely!!!
I am not against airport expansions but dead against Heathrow because it is to affect some many people. I will actually impact the whole of London and its economy because people will flee the city and might go to Amsterbam or Paris to work as life will become so unbearable in most areas of London. Not to consider that other people under the new flight path will become ill (ashma, stress, distress, etc) costing local businesses and the NHS more than the 5 billion pound ROI planned over the next 70 years...
Antoine, London, Hammersmith, UK
This unrestricted expansion of air travel will not go on for much longer. We want to bury our heads in the sand when asked to consider the environmental impact of so many aircraft movements. Before the planned expansion is completed, radical restrictions on airtravel will be on the agenda.
Bob Hagan, Wirral, Merseyside
Rowan makes an excellent point. Heathrow is essential for the economic success of the UK and a third runway would play a key part in this. I know when I am planning trips to Europe, I am now finding myself trying to avoid Heathrow at all costs and opting for Schipol or CDG.
Mark Thompson, VA, USA
The people living under the flight path knew perfectly well they were buying houses next to a big airport. They made the decision to buy cheaper/bigger houses near the airport rather than more expensive/smaller houses somewhere else. Fair enough. It does not give them the right to block the expansion of the airport when it will bring great economic benefits to the country and hopefully make journeys a little easier for the millions who pass through Heathrow every year. Anyone stuck in the queues will appreciate the need for more capacity. Don't let the NIMBYs stop it.
As for Greenpeace, I have this to say. Yes, aeroplanes are polluting. Unfortunately, there is no current alternative to jet fuel (hydrogen is about 20 years away) and no alternative to long haul flights. Instead of fighting desperately to reduce flying, you could get a lot more environmental bang for your buck if you put the same amount of effort trying to improve the energy efficiency of houses and offices.
Rowan, Oxford,
The 3rd runway is not for big business, it is for millions of people who travel and whose lives would be dramatically changed if the Greenpeace ideologist fanatics had their way and returned humankind to the stage of hunters and gatherers. The proximity of the biggest European airport is less ideal for breathing fresh air but is critically essential for thousands of jobs. If all one wants is pure unpolluted nature move to the mountains or some remote places.
Samuel Forty, London,
I live in Hillingdon & saw the map of the proposed site of the third runway at Heathrow, printed in the Hillingdon People magazine. The area this runway will cover is vast, engulfing all of Sipson Village (which will disappear) & swallowing up a huge amount of green land. The area is the size of Gatwick Airport & will isolate Harmondworth Villiage from almost everywhere. Hillingdon Borough already suffers high pollution levels as a result of Heathrow & now the government wants to add another runway into the mix. I thought we were all trying to cut our emmissions & save our planet. It seems that particular enviromental hot potato only counts when there isn't big business involved. Again our government is ignoring the voice of it's people. WE DO NOT WANT TO LOSE OUR HOMES & GREEN LAND. WE DO NOT WANT TO POLLUTE THE AIR OUR CHILDREN BREATHE FOR THE STAKE OF BIG BUSINESS. WE DO NOT WANT THE NOISE & WE DO NOT WANT THE TRAFFIC. WE DO NOT WANT THE THIRD RUNWAY!
Kelly, london, uk