Sounds like local councils behaving themselves as usual.
"The county response also calls for the master plan to contain more measures to offset the environmental impact of the predicted growth of the airport with increased air and road traffic adding extra greenhouse gas emissions and noise to threaten neighbouring residents and surrounding areas of protected heathland."
[From above article]
Really do wonder why LA's have been given remit to cover greenhouse gas emissions, and just exactly how great the noise and CO2 emissions will be on that heathland - pretty minimal I'd guess!
Sure, agenda 21 should cover road transport, and should perhaps ensure that buildings are as energy efficient as possible, which airports often are for
PR reasons, but it is highly disingenous of one authority to deny an airport expansion on the grounds of CO2 emissions, as all this will mean is a longer road journey to another airport, usually in the London area, and therefore considerably more delays on the ground and in the air.
I'm not trying to detract from the importance of the CO2 debate, but just think it is usually trundled out as an excuse for lazy nimbyism and ill-informed regulation by local busybodies who cannot see beyond a few lost votes at the end of the runway.