Leading green groups, together with local councils and residents' groups, today launched a legal challenge against the government's controversial decision to expand Heathrow airport.
The thirteen organisations backing the challenge - representing millions of people - will argue that the consultation process was flawed and that the decision was irrational.
Lawyers representing the coalition argue that a third runway means that the UK risks breaching legal limits on noise and air pollution, that it will seriously undermine our climate change targets and that the costs of the project have not been properly assessed and will not benefit the economy.
Greenpeace, WWF-UK, RSPB and CPRE will claim that expanding Heathrow will massively increase carbon emissions and that this is completely incompatible with the urgent need to tackle climate change.
Lodging the documents at the High Court is the first step in a process which is expected to lead to a Judicial Review of the government's decision on Heathrow.
If the challenge is successful, the decision would be quashed and the government would have to re-run the consultation. If the Court agrees that the decision was irrational then the government may also be forced to review its entire aviation policy, which supports expanding nearly thirty airports across the country.
Greenpeace Executive Director, John Sauven said:
"The government's decision to expand Heathrow is completely at odds with the urgent need to slash emissions and stop runaway climate change. This is why we are launching a legal challenge.
"Brown and Hoon know that the sums on Heathrow don't add up. That's why, at the last minute, they knocked together a handful of half-baked proposals in an attempt to 'green' the runway.
"But however much the government try to dress this decision up, the simple fact is that this runway can not be built if it is serious about tackling climate change."
David Norman, Director of Campaigns at WWF-UK said:
"The decision to allow a third runway at Heathrow blows the chances of setting the UK onto a low carbon pathway completely out of the water. If the targets set in the Climate Change Act are to be meaningful, the government must stop adopting policies that undermine them.
"Nor does it make sense financially - why expand a carbon intensive industry such as aviation, which will make it incredibly difficult and expensive for the UK to meet the government's carbon targets - when there are green alternatives such as video conferencing and high speed rail available instead? Every other part of the economy will have to cover the carbon costs created by a third runway."
Dr Mark Avery, the RSPB's Director of Conservation, said:
"The RSPB believes climate change to be the biggest threat to life on Earth. We are already starting to see its impacts on wildlife here in the UK, including catastrophic declines among seabirds in parts of the North Sea.
"Against this backdrop, the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow is perverse. We are not opposed to flying, and indeed recognise that for many people international travel is a vital part of their life and work. But encouraging a massive increase in flights, just at the time when we need to reduce our emissions dramatically, shows a reckless disregard for the well-being of our planet, and our future."
Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England said:
"Britain's aviation policy is badly out of date and lacks democratic legitimacy. It takes very little account of the urgency of climate change or the impact on people's quality of life of ever more noisy flights and car journeys to airports.
"The decision on the third runway was stitched up behind closed doors, and the Government seems less and less prepared to subject its decisions on aviation to proper public scrutiny. Aviation policy has become so democratically challenged that a legal challenge is the only way for groups like us to influence it." 
Posts
