|
November 9, 2003
Cost of House Purchases Hits Heathrow Expansion Plan Plans to increase Britain's airport capacity were in chaos yesterday after ministers were warned that they face serious legal problems over the expansion of Heathrow. Government lawyers said forcing residents out of houses in the way of development would prove extremely difficult. Legal advisers in Whitehall are concerned that ministers will be unable to prove the "compelling case in the public interest'' needed to win compulsory purchase orders. The legal advice presents another serious legal obstacle to a development that could be swamped with litigation. Initial government estimates showed that about 260 houses stood in the way of a third runway at the west London complex. But the airport operator, BAA, put the number at 770 because it needs room for facilities to service the additional runway. Residents in the area claim the total will be more than 1,000. The Government is due to announce plans for the expansion of airport capacity in a White Paper next month, but ministers are understood to be still undecided. John Stewart, the chairman of ClearSkies, which campaigns against the development of Heathrow, said the legal advice called into question the arguments for expansion. "The economic case for a new runway is nowhere near as strong as the Government and industry are making it out to be, and the environmental consequences are simply appalling," he said. The law states that, if just one of the householders objects, there would have to be an inquiry chaired by an independent planning inspector, who would then make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Transport. Any householder who disagreed with the minister's decision would have the right to apply for a judicial review. One way around such a drawn-out process would be for the Government to throw money at the householders, although the Treasury would balk at the setting of an expensive precedent. Jim Bailey, the chairman of Sasig, a group of 70 local authorities campaigning for an airport on a greenfield site in the South-east, said the problems illustrated the difficulties of enlarging existing facilities. "Ministers are belatedly seeing the massive scale of problems created by simply opting to bolt on bits to existing airports," he said. "There is every risk in 10 years' time that none of the airports will be developed and we will be thinking we should have started from scratch.'' The Government is thought to have decided against the construction of a new international hub on the Thames estuary near Cliffe.Backers of expansion at Heathrow have also been warned that a new runway would mean the airport would fail to meet new European Union pollution standards being introduced in 2010. Britain's biggest airlines and BAA, the principal supporters of another runway at Heathrow, argue that the targets will easily be met. British Airways and Virgin Atlantic have also warned that they would take legal action if the Government opted to increase capacity at Stansted.The carriers believe that a new runway on the Essex site would be a white elephant that would have to be subsidised by BAA. The airports operator would pass the cost on in landing charges to airlines, which would continue to use Heathrow, according to the argument. News emerged at the weekend, however, that the Civil Aviation Authority had rejected any idea that there could be "cross-subsidy''.
|