So everyone can know what recommendations the Transport Select Committee made and which haven't been acted on by government, but they count for nothing. Great!

Presumably, issues, targets or recommendations from the (independent) Airports Commission report - and some may feel that was not particularly impressive anyway - that have not been acted on or achieved, could be brought up in a JR. Or could they?

http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/articl...rd-runway-plan

Anyone else remember the days when debate had something between two extremes?

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38...ervice-in-w18/
Chinese growth continues with Air China adding 3 more weekly to a total of 17.

The UK government has largely ignored recommendations from a key parliamentary committee about Heathrow airport’s third runway scheme, the committee’s chair has said, making it much more likely that courts will strike down the project.

Lilian Greenwood, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons transport select committee, said transport secretary Chris Grayling “gave the impression that 24 of our 25 recommendations had been accepted”, but said his comments were just “rhetoric”.

“The reality was that only two or three of our recommendations were actually accepted,” she said. “I suppose at best you could say that the government said they agreed with the spirit of our recommendations and would ensure those matters were dealt with in the [planning] process.”


Credit FT.com

Judicial review launched against Heathrow expansion

Lawyers acting for a consortium of local authorities and others have today issued judicial review proceedings in the High Court against the Secretary of State for Transport, on the basis that he has unlawfully designated the Airports National Policy Statement [NPS] under the Planning Act 2008.

News release: 06 August 2018

The proceedings challenging the expansion of Heathrow airport have been brought by the London Boroughs of Hillingdon, Wandsworth, Richmond, Hammersmith and Fulham, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, Greenpeace and the Mayor of London.

The grounds of challenge are on air quality, inadequate environmental assessment, climate change, surface access, breach of the habitats directive and a flawed consultation process.

Councillor Ray Puddifoot, Leader of Hillingdon Council, said: "Once again we have a government that is trying to avoid applying both the correct legal process and common sense to the question of airport expansion.

"The abject failure to address the far reaching consequences for both the environment and the health and wellbeing of tens of thousands of residents across London is simply not acceptable.

"This council is not prepared to stand back and allow this to happen without submitting the many flaws in this project to the rigorous scrutiny of the High Court and beyond, if necessary.

"I have confidence in the judicial process and am hopeful, that as with the previous judicial review challenge which was heard back in 2010, that the court will expose the many failings of this ill-thought-through project".

Yup - folks have been doing that with increasing frequency for over 20 years. The European and M.E. hubs have scooped it up.

Still, no need to worry as R3 won't be built and we'll carry on with the usual Britsh fudge-up.

Apparently the number of legal challenges is in double figures. The betting seems to suggest the judges will block as Grayling has given protagonists an open goal to shoot at.

Only 2 of the23 recommendations by the Transport Select Committee have been implemented.

If each case takes 6 months and they don't run concurrently that suggests the lawyers could be busy for a minimum 5 years and even longer with counter appeals.

in that time a runway could have been built at Gatwick

Possible, but half of the environmental fruitcakes will want to appeal against that as well, which would cause delays there as well

do you think, given there seems to have been areas of carelessness in the process so far, that the government(cabinet) are hoping the courts will do their dirty work for them and stop the runway?

No runway at Gatwick either True Blue and you could be on to something with our pusillanimous politcians who proclaim they want to 'help make a better Britain' blah blah blah.

Areas of carelessness....

is an understatement. Or maybe we are not giving Grayling enough credit and he is counting on the courts go pull it.

Unlikely that Grayling would think that, given the carnage that he wrought on HMCTS when he was running MoJ.

Yes perhaps on reflection you are right DR.

Not forgetting the current debacle with Northern Rail which is an absolute pigs breakfast .

Small wonder he is known as "Failing Grayling"!

By this, i mean the people who are totally against any and all Aviation related expansion. People who want no expansion at all and who chain themselves to cars, lay on the runway....those 'fruitcakes' (they do it on an environmental basis)
The likes of 'Stop Heathrow Expansion', 'Stop Stansted Expansion'... (you get the idea)

There is legitimate and justified demand for the UK to have at least 1 extra runway, but these people just flat out refute that point.

It's actually one of the rare times i would side with Mr O' Leary, and suggest 3 extra runways at LHR/LGW/STN. Partly to cover our requirements for the next 50+ years, but also to annoy them even further

I don't think it will take legal challenge or other environmental protest to see that this runway never gets built. Whatever a gullible Parliament and Regional Airport consortium was led to vote in favour of, it is now more than ever apparent that that R3 is a preposterous idea with no sound business case. There are alternatives which provide much better value for money. If even the FT thinks so then why on Earth is this thing still being talked about? A heavily indebted owner which is paying out more in dividends than it is earning doesn't sound like a safe pair of hands to be embarking on such a venture in any case.

https://www.ft.com/content/98e6b128-...1-31da4279a601

The FT was one of the biggest cheerleaders for the UK joining the euro and we've seen the issues the euro has had and is still having so the FT is hardly infallible.

I wonder what the consequences might have been if BEA had remained at Northolt, the runway realigned to E/W and a tunnel build to Heathrow. Still hypothetical now.

..........or if a third (and fourth) rwy had been built as soon as it became apparent that it was required, i.e. at about the time when the government declared that Heathrow was "full" (circa 1977).

Equally hypothetical?

oops hes done it again....

Fears ignoring recommendations on new runway’s impact could imperil development High Court is to consider a judicial review of government’s decision to support the £14bn Heathrow extension




The UK government has largely ignored recommendations from a key parliamentary committee about Heathrow airport’s third runway scheme, the committee’s chair has said, making it much more likely that courts will strike down the project. Lilian Greenwood, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons transport select committee, said transport secretary Chris Grayling “gave the impression that 24 of our 25 recommendations had been accepted”, but said his comments were just “rhetoric”. “The reality was that only two or three of our recommendations were actually accepted,” she said. “I suppose at best you could say that the government said they agreed with the spirit of our recommendations and would ensure those matters were dealt with in the [planning] process.” The committee’s recommendations for Heathrow expansion included adopting stricter air-quality standards, setting a binding target to prevent more airport-related traffic and defining noise-pollution limits. Later this year, the High Court will consider a judicial review against the government’s decision to support the £14bn Heathrow project. The judicial review has been brought by five local councils, with the backing of Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, and Greenpeace, the environmental campaigning organisation. The councils are challenging the decision on the grounds of air quality, climate change, noise pollution and transport access. Ms Greenwood said that if the courts overturned the government’s decision, it would “make the economic case on which Heathrow expansion is predicated less favourable” and mean “even greater extended uncertainty” for local communities. Ms Greenwood’s committee has also been investigating the failure of the East Coast mainline franchise. In May, the government stripped the franchise from Virgin and Stagecoach. It has also been looking into the disastrous introduction of new timetables in May, which has led to thousands of cancelled services and months of disruption. Ms Greenwood criticised Mr Grayling over both affairs.

Morning Skippy, a campaign?

I'm glad you think I have influence but i can assure you simply repeating some newsworthy items will not make one iota of difference either way. I repeat it here simply to inform others who have an interest in the subject. The house of commons supported Heathrow a totally democratic decision so as you say woebetide a judge going against it.

But it does raise the question of checks and balances, there is little point actually having a Transport Committee if nobody takes a blind bit of notice. I suspect most Mps who supported took their lead from the BBC news who as we all know were VERY supportive. No mention of the TAXPAYER invoice there .

It makes the Transport Committee appear to be a very expensive talking shop. Nothing more nothing less.
That is the point I make here.

While most of the attention will be on the judicial review launched by the local authorities/Greenpeace, equally fascinating will be the JR from the originators of the overruled Extended Northern Runway proposal.

Clearly Heathrow Hub believe that no matter how dead a horse is, it can always benefit from a bit more flogging.

Indeed. Apart from being untried and untested anywhere in the world, the Heathrow Hub proposal has one very important flaw: in order to increase capacity, permanent mixed mode is required with no respite for any flightpath residents at any time.

That would be unacceptable to everyone, especially supporters of expansion, including Heathrow Ltd..

Sometime in the future, once aircraft are even cleaner and quieter than now and mixed/segregated mode operations are no longer an issue, and once the technical and safety concerns are sorted, the Heathrow Hub proposal could be a template for a 4th parallel rwy.

However, it's academic for all of us, we'll all be long dead.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45165222

Come March I presume EU pax will not be able to use egates either ?
It will be total gridlock.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45165222

" The Heathrow Hub proposal could be a template for a 4th parallel rwy "

That's the problem with LHR cheer -leaders - they don't know when to stop....

Frank, you've just handed more ammunition to the Anti's...........................

Passport Delays breach limits on 30 out of 31 days
 

Delays at Heathrow Airport passport control left passengers queuing for up to two and a half hours last month, figures show. On 30 out of 31 days in July, the border force missed its target of a 45-minute wait or less for 95% of visitors from outside the European Economic Area (EEA).

Virgin Atlantic, which obtained the data, said passengers are "frustrated". The government said it is deploying 200 extra staff to Heathrow this summer.According to the data, the longest immigration queues were on 6 July when travellers from outside the EEA - an area made up of 31 European countries - had to wait in line for up to two hours and 36 minutes.Craig Kreeger, the boss of Virgin Atlantic, said while it is agreed that security and safety is a priority, other countries are managing their borders better than the UK. He said "only the Border Force" can take action to "resolve these unacceptable queue times. At a time when the UK needs to show the world it is open for business, the government and Border Force need to provide a great first impression for every visitor every time," he said.

Citizens of the European Union, the EEA and Switzerland can use the electronic gates at Heathrow's passport control - but visitors from all other countries must have their passports checked by a border force official.

Talking casually to someone fairly high up within the civil service about matters customs and border related in the last couple of weeks it was clear that they are trying to plan for life after we leave the EU (whenever that may be, depending upon transition, how long any transition actually would be, or no transition) and it was clear that they are trying to get government to understand that a sudden exit would leave them incapable of managing borders or customs, having got too few staff, insufficient trainers experienced in customs procedures in particular, and currently absolutely no idea what they are planning for. Even the hoped for transition ending December 2020 may be tight.

It is our illustrious leader who stopped management at the Border Force from using their common sense, which experienced officers have in spades, and targeting arrivals based upon profiling. At the same time, the numbers of people working in front line border force positions has fallen, whilst the number of travelers has increased exponentially. If HMG is going to parachute 200 extra officers into LHR (they say "deploying" when the word is actually "redeploying"), one assumes that will be to the cost of longer delays at Eurotunnel, Manchester, Birmingham, Luton etc., which solves nothing - except of course looking after London (as per usual where the UK government is concerned). Then again, how may MPs and government ministers ever use an airport that isn't LHR?

Definitely not - unless the deal is reciprocal. The US have no qualms about UK citizens having to queue for several hours to enter the US so allowing US citizens express access through UK Border Control is simply not on.

A friend of mine works for the Border Agency and I don't think morale there is that good with turnover quite high.

Any UK citizen that uses ESTA and is on there second visit or more can use the US citizens channel.

Are you sure?. I have a B2 visa and are always directed to the visitors line.

I've used the US lane and e-gates when travelling on an ESTA.

Thanks - I'll try it next time. If I end up detained by CBP I know who to blame.. ;)