Uttlesford Council applies for judicial review of Stansted airport expansion…

uttlesford-council-applies-for-judicial-review-of-stansted-airport-expansion…

Uttlesford Council applies for judicial review of Stansted airport expansion…

Uttlesford Council applies for judicial review of Stansted airport expansion plans
2021-07-09 22:36:00
In May, the Planning Inspectorate (PI) approved plans by Stansted airport to expand its maximum number of annual passengers from 35 to 43 million. This had been opposed by Uttlesford Council, but the decision was challenged by the airport.  Now Uttlesford District Council  UDC) is trying to get this PI decision reversed, as it goes against the decision by a democratically elected council.  UDC submitted its application to the court for a JR one day before its submission deadline, and the UDC leader John Lodge said the decision to apply for Judicial Review was taken after seeking legal advice. Local campaign, Stansted Airport Watch, had asked for a JR, so the decision is taken by the Secretary of State for Transport, not the PI. Since the PI decision, the government enshrined a new “Carbon Budget” into legislation. The Sixth Carbon Budget now aims to cut emissions by 78% by 2035 compared to 1990 levels, and for the first time, the carbon emissions of international aviation will be included in UK totals. That should mean the collective increases in carbon of all the airport expansion plans will have to be considered together, and none of the airports seeking expansion should be considered in isolation. .Tweet Update on the Stansted position, from Stansted Airport Watch 13.7.2021 Uttlesford District Council (UDC) has now filed a JR application [Judicial Review  – see below] against the Secretary of State which seeks to challenge the recent lifting of the Stansted planning cap from 35mppa to 43mppa. The UDC challenge is focused on climate change/carbon emissions and Stansted Airport Watch (SAW) will, of course, provide as much support as possible (despite past differences).  UDC is also challenging the award of Stansted Airport’s Public Inquiry costs against them. There was no costs award against SAW and so we will not engage on that particular issue. UDC are keen to canvas as much support as possible in the hope of elevating the main issue at stake to the contradiction between the Government’s aviation policy and Government’s climate change policy. It’s the view of UDC counsel (with which SAW agrees) that there is more chance of success if it can be demonstrated that this is not just about Stansted, but also about the expansion plans for Bristol, Southampton and Leeds Bradford airports, not to mention plans in the pipeline for the expansion of Heathrow (R3 supported by the ANPS), Gatwick and Luton (for which Scoping Reports have been submitted to PINS), and other UK airports.  None of this sits comfortably with the Net Zero target or the recommendations of the CCC, and in less than four months the UK Government will be hosting COP26 and doubtless trying to lead by example in the global battle to try to prevent catastrophic climate change. Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE), recently rebranded Stansted Airport Watch (SAW), will fully support UDC’s JR application.  To keep our cost manageable and avoid the risk of an adverse costs award if the case is lost, we are not a Joint Claimant but rather an Interested Party.  We will be represented by a QC at the High Court hearing, assuming permission is granted for a JR.  We will seek to fill in any gaps in the UDC evidence and help UDC counter the evidence from the Secretary of State and Stansted Airport Limited.  SAW is advised that it is possible that the Court may decide to combine the Stansted case with other similar airport expansion cases before the Court at that time.  That may include Southam

Read More


Share this post