‘This decision could change the course of the aviation industry’

We always suspected it; now we know for sure. Our government prefers to support the interests of big business over their duty to keep this planet habitable for us.

The particular case being heard on November 8 and 9 in a small court room in central Bristol concerned the expansion of Bristol Airport but the government’s principle of unlimited expansion goes much wider.

This is at exactly same time as Rushi Sunak was saying at COP27 that the UK “continues to demonstrate our leadership on climate change globally”.

The truth was laid bare in the views expressed by the government’s own barrister in Bristol. The clear unequivocal message was, even if we’re in the middle of climate chaos, airport expansion should still be encouraged to happen around the country.

Just to recap for those who have missed the four year saga that got us to this stage: Bristol Airport applied for planning permission to expand by two million passengers a year in Dec 2018 (from 10m to 12m).

This would mean an extra million tonnes of carbon in the delicate high atmosphere, 10,000 extra car journeys a day, a multi-storey car park on Greenbelt land and more night flights than the more highly regulated Heathrow.

Not surprisingly, local resistance was enormous!

The local planning committee listened to residents’ voices and emphatically turned the plans down. The airport, who are owned by the fifth largest pension fund in the world, ignored local opinion and appealed against the decision to the national Planning Inspectorate.

After a 10-week public inquiry last year, the inspectors allowed their appeal, thus completely ignoring the local councils, the local MPs and the 84% of local people who were against the plans.

Bristol Airport Action Network (BAAN) took expert legal advice and were told that the inspector’s decision contained numerous errors of law.

We therefore crowdfunded the legal fees and submitted an appeal to the High Court against their decision. Less than 10 per cent of cases get through to the final hearing but the judge considered the papers and agreed that we had an important case that should be heard.

The government and the airport argued that it would be more convenient for the barristers if it was heard in London and indeed it is unusual for the High Court to sit outside London for cases such as this.

However, in an early victory, the judge agreed with our argument that this was very important to Bristol and the local region and therefore needed to take place where local people could make their voices heard. The High Court hearing was last week in Bristol.

……………………………………….

Read more: Bristol Airport clashes with anti-expansion campaigners in court

……………………………………….

The government and the airport both employed a team of top barristers to defend themselves against BAAN’s case as they know that if we are successful the airport’s planning permission will be quashed with wide-ranging implications.

In fact, the government revealed its wider hand through this case by defending it at all while at the same time making announcements at COP27 about the importance and imminence of climate change.

Their hypocrisy was laid bare by their arguments at the court. For example, the government’s barrister at the hearing said that, even if the judge agreed with BAAN’s case and carbon calculations should have been included by the inspectors in coming to their decision, this was not an important enough mistake to change the outcome and expansion should still be allowed through.

How can that be? The inspectors make such a fundamental mistake and yet the decision should still be allowed to stand? The only answer must be that the government have already decided what they want to happen – Bristol Airport to expand.

This is deeply worrying because there are 19 other planned expansions of regional airports in the UK. They will all be carefully looking at the Bristol decision.

If these expansion plans come to fruition there will be absolutely no chance of the UK meeting its legal obligation of Net Zero by 2050 under the Climate Change Act (2008).

Bristol Airport Action Network campaigners and their legal team – photo: BAAN

The arguments in this case clearly show that the government has no coherent and legal path in response to the climate chaos.

They continue to deny this of course; it was stated by the government’s barrister and the airport’s barrister many times that the Government will be keeping to its legal obligations under the CCA.

However, the actual evidence is this: our prime minister shows little interest in climate change having initially refused to attend COP27; in September 2022 the flagship Net Zero policy was found to be unlawful by the courts and still awaits rewriting; the government is well off-track to meet its future carbon obligations under the planned carbon budgets and there is a current challenge in the High Court against its Jet Zero aviation policy as being unrealistic and reliant on technological solutions that do not yet exist!

So at this time it is clear that our government has no coherent policy on aviation. This is despite the Climate Change Committee recommending on numerous occasions that there should be “no net airport expansion”.

They are the government’s independent scientific advisors, appointed by the government to get us to net-zero, and yet on this crucial point, ministers are ignoring their advice and, as we heard in Bristol last week, are enthusiastically arguing for unlimited airport expansion.

……………………………………….

Read more: XR Youth protesters target Airport Flyer bus

……………………………………….

If the judge agrees with our arguments and BAAN win the case, it will be hugely important legally for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it will confirm the principle that planning decisions having a huge impact on local lives should be decided locally not in Westminster.

Secondly, it will reset where the responsibility for considering carbon emissions in airport planning applications lies. At the moment it is not clear; the inspectors decided that it should be considered only nationally and local policies on the subject of carbon emissions should be effectively ignored. We say this was an error in law.

BAAN’s bigger message is that if this expansion is allowed to go ahead it will clearly show that the planning system is not fit-for-purpose.

How can it be that local planning committees can be ignored and not allowed to take account carbon emissions?

We also say that the cumulative impact of so many airports expanding needs to be considered. It seems an obvious point, but at the moment the government refuse to do this calculation; each airport is being considered individually and no one is totting-up the overall impact on our legally binding climate targets.

BAAN campaigners outside court – photo: John Wimperis

The support that we have received from people and groups in Bristol and the wider region outside the court and from people around the world, shows that our frustration is shared by many many people.

Remember, we are not saying Bristol Airport should be closed; simply that it is big enough.

We are very hopeful that the judge will agree with us and reaffirm the decision made locally.

It is no exaggeration to say that this decision could change the course of the aviation industry and bring it more in line with our sustainable needs.

Tarisha Finnegan-Clarke and Stephen Clarke are members of Bristol Airport Action Network

Main photo: Adblock

Read next:

• Underground feasibility reports released by Rees likely to be ‘inaccurate’
• ‘Bristol Airport expansion must be stopped’
• ‘The case of Bristol Airport exposes the gaping flaw in national planning guidance’

Listen to the latest Bristol24/7 Behind the Headlines podcast: