Brighton – Lewes Road Corridor (£4.030m)

Kent – Growth Without Gridlock (£2.273m)

Oxfordshire: The Oxfordshire Arc: Supporting Employment Growth and Accessing Higher Education & Healthcare in Oxford (Key Component) £5.000m

Reading Sustainable Access for Reading: Overcoming Barriers & Boundaries £4.902m

Southampton Sustainable Travel City £3.960m

Hampshire Sustainable Transport Towns £4.076m

Surrey  Surrey TravelSMART (Key Component) £3.930m

Further rounds of funding is available and details of the process are on DfTs website.

Our South East Region-wide study is in three parts. This first study covers the Berkshire Unitary authorities of Bracknell, Reading, Slough, Wokingham and West Berkshire, the Unitary Authority of Milton Keynes, and the Counties of Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. Although Windsor and Maidenhead did some preliminary work they decided to carry over their LTP2 and to produce an LTP3 at a later date.

This is a web based study which was started when LTP3s were in consultation document form. Where possible we have read the final documents submitted to DfT but information in some instances has not been updated on web sites. We have experienced difficulty in accessing detailed Implementation Plans which we assume would give us harder information on the level of commitment to policies to encourage cycling and walking.

Tackling climate change was one of the five Delivering a Sustainable Transport System goals around which the previous government advised local transport authorities to draw up their LTP3s. The present government did not issue fresh advice on the form LTP3 should take but reiterated a commitment to reducing CO₂ emissions from transport.

It would therefore have been surprising if in drawing up their LTP3s local transport authorities had failed to incorporate some consideration of the need for their transport strategies to include a reference to the need to tackle climate change.

This is in fact the case.

Bracknell Forest ‘Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport’ is a local objective. It is also regarded as a challenge. ‘Through promotion of sustainable transport the Council will seek to reduce harmful transport emissions and work with potential developers to ensure future growth in the Borough can be achieved without an increase in greenhouse gases.’

Buckinghamshire ‘Transport has a key role to play in reducing carbon emissions and the impact on the county’s natural and built environment. We have a fundamental role in reducing carbon and waste generated by our operations as the Local Transport Authority.’

Milton Keynes ‘Reduce transport based CO₂ emissions to help tackle climate change.’ is an objective. ‘Milton Keynes will have the most sustainable transport network in the country reducing transport based CO₂ emissions significantly, tackling climate change and improve air quality’.

Oxfordshire. One of the four local transport goals is ‘to reduce the impact of transport on the environment and help tackle climate change.’ ‘Our core objective for carbon dioxide reduction is principally focused on encouraging trips to either not be made, or to be made by less carbon intensive transport modes’.

Reading ‘Climate change threatens our economic and social prosperity and innovative solutions for mitigation and adaptation will be required to deliver successful and stable transport networks in the future. The Reading Climate Change Strategy 2008-2013 aims to reduce the borough’s carbon footprint by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050’.

A Strategic Objective is ‘To reduce carbon emissions from transport, improve air quality and create a transport network which supports a mobile, affordable low-carbon future.’

Slough ‘Reduce transport’s CO2 emissions & make transport network resilient to the effects of climate change’ is a transport objective. ‘We have set targets to reduce the Council’s CO2 emissions by 40% by 2014 and to make Slough carbon neutral (i.e. with zero net greenhouse gas emissions) by 2020 2. We also set a target to reduce CO2 emissions per head in the borough by 9% by 2010/11 from a 2005 baseline.’

Wokingham  ‘Tackling climate change is of the utmost importance for the Council – this will be reflected in the policy options throughout this plan. Transport, and in particular the use of private vehicles, is a strong contributor of greenhouse gas emissions.’ ‘2020 Target: The Council will have achieved a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions from transport compared to 2005 levels.’

West Berkshire Carbon reduction and climate change is regarded as a key issue: -
‘Climate change is widely regarded as the most serious environmental challenge of the 21st century. The Council will need to develop a transport system that will seek to reduce local transport-based carbon emissions, and to develop networks that will have greater resilience to the impacts of climate change.’  

Reducing harmful emissions from transport requires a shift away from the motor car, van and lorry, either modally to cycling, walking and public transport or by just by reducing the amount of travel by private motorised vehicles. Whilst recognising the importance of reducing the need to travel and of supporting and promoting public transport this review confines itself to walking and cycling and how these are being promoted, either through investment in infrastructure or through promotional initiatives such as smarter choices or behaviour change interventions. All the authorities studied had policies, strategies or objectives aimed at increasing levels of cycling and walking through infrastructural improvements and a smarter choices (or behaviour change) programme. 

Bracknell Forest.   Smarter Choices, Walking and Cycling and Travel Planning are three of 20 policies. There is a Smarter Choices strategy. ‘The Council’s approach to walking and cycling will be implemented through the Walking and Cycling Strategy, the Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan, the Sustainable Modes of Travel to School strategy and the production of Travel Plans.’

Within the Implementation Plan ‘Smarter Choices’ and  ‘Sustainable Modes of Travel to School’ are ‘Strategy Areas’. In the table of schemes, there are six under the heading of ‘School Gates Assessments and future Sustainable Modes of Travel to School’ aimed at improving pedestrian and cycling links to schools. Under ‘Access, Mobility and Travel choice’ there are several schemes aimed at improving pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, but only two which might involve soft measures ‘Cycle Network Marketing & Rebranding’ and  ‘Local Sustainable Transport Fund Bid – development of bid to government for sustainable transport improvements.’ Under ‘Infrastructure linked to future growth and development’ there are 20 schemes for ‘Pedestrian and Cycling accessibility improvements’ but only three are given a time frame.

Buckinghamshire In the ‘Thriving Economy’ chapter there are references to encouraging behaviour change and travel plans as well as consideration of the shared space concept. An objective under the ‘Sustainable Environment’ Chapter is ‘Increase the proportion of people travelling by low emission modes of transport’ which is linked to behaviour change initiatives. There is a ‘Sustainable Travel Strategy’ which highlights smarter choices techniques. In the ‘Health and Wellbeing ‘chapter there is an objective to ‘improve health by encouraging cycling and walking’. This chapter incorporates a summary of the ‘Sustainable Travel Strategy – Walking, Cycling and ‘Rights of Way’. Ongoing support for ‘Bikeability’is affirmed here as well as the consideration of 20mph zones and support for new pedestrian and cycling routes. In the ‘Cohesive and Strong Communities’ chapter there is a reference to supporting active travel and encouraging travel plans.

In the draft (Feb 2011) Implementation plan 2011/12, Key Performance Indicators relating to cycling and walking are ‘County wide cycling indicator’ and ‘Increase in Active Travel to school – walking/cycling’. These are new indicators and are presented without an agreed methodology and without targets. ‘The average number of cycling journeys per year in Bucks’ is an established indicator with a methodology but no target.

 In the current financial year £534K of revenue funding has been allocated to Public Transport and Sustainable Travel, with £527k and £538K in subsequent years.

Milton Keynes  Cycling and walking is a strategy strand as is Smarter Choices. ‘Cycling and walking will be given top priority within city estates; and cycling and walking links in rural areas to employment centres and key services will be improved.’

There is a Cycling and Walking Strategy which includes a list of interventions with short and medium term delivery dates. MK will continue to monitor the number of cycling trips

There is a Smarter Choices Strategy which includes a list of interventions with short and medium term delivery dates.

In the Implementation Plan ‘The council and its relevant local partners will bid for funding from the central government Local Sustainable Transport Fund, particularly for funding in Year 1 and subsequent years in the short-term. This will be for a package of cycling and walking interventions and related measures. In the medium and long-term, the council and partners will bid for central government major scheme funding.

Other funding will be sought from a variety of partners, including operators, local

businesses, organisations and developers.’  In the table of interventions specific but estimated sums over four years, both capital and revenue, are allocated for Cycling and Walking and Smarter Choices interventions.

Oxfordshire. There is a chapter entitled ‘Walking, Cycling and Rights of Way’.

 ‘Walking and cycling provide travel options that have the lowest carbon footprint and few adverse environmental impacts, and they contribute to improving people’s health. They can reduce congestion and improve accessibility. Our core objective is to create the conditions where a greater proportion of trips, especially in urban areas, are made on foot or by bicycle’. ‘Our strategy for promoting more walking and cycling includes:

• route-by-route auditing of existing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists

 to develop programmes for improvement of important routes and facilities;

• developing pedestrian and cycle route networks by providing new or improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists;
• improving signage of pedestrian and cycle routes; and
• promoting the health, environmental, and financial benefits of increased walking and cycling, including use of rights of way and publicly accessible green areas.

 ‘Oxfordshire County Council remains committed to the principle that cyclists have every right to use the whole county road network including main roads, particularly in Oxford where there are large flows of cyclists on some main radial roads.’

 There is a section on image and marketing of cycling.

 In respect of The Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) they ‘are currently developing a package of appropriate measures.’

 The Implementation Plan which is called Transport Investment Programme has little detailed information on proposed spending which is aimed directly at promoting cycling and walking, but in the Strategy document specific sums 2011 to 2015 have been allocated to footway schemes under a ‘Structural Maintenance’ heading. Under ‘Integrated Transport’ small sums have been allocated through the Science Vale Transport Package to a cycle network for 2011/12 and 2012/13 but have not been determined for subsequent years.

Reading ‘To facilitate more physically active travel for journeys in a healthy environment’ is an objective.

‘The Cycling Strategy (2008) aims to develop branded radial routes which connect residential areas to central Reading as well as to local centres, employment areas, and key local facilities such as education, leisure, and health services. The mapping and signing of these routes is well-progressed.’

‘The challenge related to cycling is to encourage more people to cycle by

developing and promoting safe, attractive and direct cycle routes and through provision of information and training opportunities that reduce the perceived dangers of cycling’.

 Objectives for walking are:

- To make conditions safer, more convenient and more attractive for pedestrians;

- To increase the number of people walking to local shops, schools, interchange locations and other destinations; and

- To break down real and perceived barriers to pedestrian movement.

We were unable to access any detailed Implementation Plan.

Slough Cycling measures’ are one of the 12 ‘Principal Transport Strategy Components’. ‘Walking Measures’ are one of the 12 ‘Principal Transport Strategy Components’.

Cycling will contribute to 10 of the 12 transport objectives.

Walking will contribute to the same 10 transport objectives.

There is a Cycling Strategy, a Walking Strategy and a Smarter Choices Strategy.

‘Our walking and cycling strategies, combined with our Rights of

Way Improvement Plan (RoWIP) are directed at improving facilities and encouraging more people to walk and cycle.’

‘Our smarter choices strategy places a strong emphasis on promoting walking and

cycling to school by working in partnership with schools and developing initiatives to make travel by these modes more attractive.’

Providing second-hand or abandoned bikes to those on low incomes and a cycle hire scheme are proposed.

‘To support our travel planning activity we will look to fund cycle training (such as

Bike It and Bikeability) for school age children in Slough. We will also seek to extend cycle training opportunities to adults.’

‘In designing all highway schemes we will implement a cycle and pedestrian audit procedure to ensure that the needs of the non‐motorised mode users are considered’

‘Central to our smarter choices campaign will be a marketing and communications plan.’

‘Investment in maintaining and enhancing walking and cycle routes to make them safer and more attractive is the foundation for boosting levels of active travel in Slough. We will work with health partners, the proposed Cycle Forum and others to promote the health benefits.’

‘We aim to establish a forum or campaign group with people who cycle in Slough to help foster a stronger cycling culture in the Borough.’

We were unable to access any detailed Implementation Plan.

West Berkshire ‘Encouraging more people to walk and cycle can allow people to become more active by incorporating physical activity into their everyday lives. This can help address some of the current health issues facing the UK, such as tackling obesity and heart disease.’

Travel Choice is a key policy which involves developing options to encourage greater use of walking and cycling.

There are Smarter Choices and Active Travel Strategies supported by Cycling and Walking Policies. These policies will be delivered through (amongst other initiatives) ‘the provision of professional cycle training’ and ‘the delivery of a Smarter Choices Strategy for West Berkshire.’

The Climate Change Policy ‘will be delivered by development and promotion of walking, cycling, and public transport networks’. The School Travel Policy ‘will be delivered (amongst other initiatives) by the provision of professional cycle training’ and ‘by promotion of walk to school schemes’.

 In the Indicative Implementation Plan there are several cycling and walking schemes listed with either costings or officer time allocated to them.  Under the key policy of Active Travel in 2011/12 £570k has been allocated for capital expenditure, 4.8k for revenue and £565k from developer contributions. There are also allocations for the years to 2014. Under the Key Policy of Smarter Choices, which is heavily weighted towards the promotion of travel plans the only allocation is officer time. West Berkshire Council has been awarded £65,000 to continue funding the delivery of Bikeability in 2011/12. The Council will develop a bid to be submitted to DfT for the LSTF.

 Wokingham There are Active Travel Policy Options. ‘Walking and cycling are good for boosting health and, when replacing short journeys by car, they can also reduce congestion levels and CO2 emissions. Walking or cycling can be a quicker and lower

cost alternative to the car or public transport for many short journeys and are often the easiest ways for most of us to get more physically active.’ ‘We will actively encourage integrating walking and cycling routes and facilities into key destinations including –Retail, Leisure and Social facilities; Public Transport Interchanges; Schools, Colleges and other educational facilities and Employment areas.’ ‘2026 Target: At least one in five journeys to work is either on foot or by bicycle.’ There are Smarter Choices and Demand Management Policy Options. This includes a School Travel Awareness Campaign.’ ‘2026 Target: At least 60% of children in the Borough travel to school by walking and cycling.-2026 Target: 80% of all school children have received cycle training by Year 7.’’T’T        ’ Schools, Colleges and other educational facilities;

Travel Plans and Area Wide Travel planning are also Policy Options.

We were unable to access any detailed Implementation Plan.

 Peter England

The council has submitted its” best and final” bid on 9th September (available here). The bid proposes that at a cool £93.146m, including all the costs spent on work so far, a reduction of £6.934m on the cost of £100.08m as estimated at the Expression of Interest stage earlier this year, the scheme is value for money and vital to the economic regeneration of the area. The council hopes it will open up land for business and housing developments and improve transport links between the two towns. 

DfT will accept views until 14 October from anyone who wishes to comment on the proposals. The Hastings Alliance website has full detail of the reasons why this road scheme is unnecessary. If you would like to submit comments on the bid, please send them to development.pool@dft.gsi.gov.uk alternatively you can use the simple response form on the Roads to Nowhere (Campaign for Better Transport) pages

DfT Ministers are expected to make a decision by the end of the year. Should ESCC receive funding approval, they would then expect a decision on the Compulsory Purchase Orders to follow shortly afterwards. If those are approved, work could start in the summer of 2012, and be completed in December 2014.

Q1. This question is about the strategy and wider context: Do you agree that there is a strong case for enhancing the capacity and performance of Britain’s inter-city rail network to support economic growth over the coming decades?

A1. SEFS believes that there is a strong case for enhancing the capacity of the inter-city rail network. Many trains are already routinely overcrowded and there may be a case for additional capacity to be provided by new lines in addition to improvements to the existing network, in terms of additional rolling stock, technology, infrastructure, timetabling and the fares structure.

SEFS supports policies and the construction of infrastructure where these are likely to promote modal shift away from the car, lorry and aircraft.

Improvements in the capacity and performance of the inter city rail network should not only aim to support environmentally sustainable economic growth but should improve the journey experience for all rail travellers, in respect of overcrowding, reliability and value for money.

The case for increasing capacity is not a case for engineering a line for speeds up to 400kmh.  

Issues of capacity and performance on the inter city rail network cannot however be divorced from what happens on the rest of the rail network and should be addressed in the context of a comprehensive review of the nature and purpose of the entire transport system, with a clear commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the sector. 

Q2. This question is about the case for high speed rail: Do you agree that a national high speed rail network from London to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester (the Y network) would provide the best value for money solution (best balance of costs and benefits) for enhancing rail capacity and performance?

 A2. No. Until a comprehensive plan for upgrading the entire rail network is in place the question is premature. SEFS agrees that the current performance levels connecting major midland and northern cities is poor but addressing this issue directly, rather than as a future spin off from a single high speed line would seem to provide better value for money than time savings between London and the midlands.

Whilst it is therefore impossible to assess the value for money of the proposed stand alone project the negative environmental impacts are well documented.  These are alluded to but the impacts do not seem to be fully understood. In some instances the costs are incalculable and the damage irreversible. SEFS cannot agree with the statement ‘that sensitive route design and effective use of mitigation measures can reduce any local environmental impacts to an acceptable level.’

Q3. This question is about how to deliver the Government’s proposed network: Do you agree with the Government’s proposals for the phased roll-out of a national high speed rail network, and for links to Heathrow Airport and to the High Speed 1 line to the Channel Tunnel?

A3. No. SEFS supports phasing of improvements to the rail network but not as proposed, as this relates solely to the roll out of HS2 without proper consideration for its role as part of the wider network. There is little consideration of the important links with the classic rail network and the associated risk of poorer services to some towns.

We support in principle a link to HS1 but cannot understand why this has to be at Old Oak Common rather than at Euston/St Pancras. We do not support the proposed link to Heathrow as it would appear to be a major factor in the choice of what is an extremely damaging route and we cannot understand the reason for linking Heathrow with HS2, which would have little effect on modal shift.  A quality rail link from Heathrow to HS1/HS2 at Euston/St Pancras should be dealt with as a separate scheme providing convenient rail access to European as well as British destinations. 

Q4. This question is about the specification for the line between London and the West Midlands: Do you agree with the principles and specification used by HS2 Ltd to underpin its proposals for new high speed rail lines and the route selection process HS2 Ltd undertook?

 A4. SEFS is able to support several of the general principles in particular ‘integration with other transport networks’ and also ‘integration with the classic network’. SEFS also supports the four principles of sustainable development listed. It is unfortunate that in choosing the preferred route HS2 does not seem to be complying with these.

It is unfortunate that major factors in route selection appear to be the need to run at speeds up to 400kmh, the significance attached to small time savings and the need for the route to serve Heathrow. This makes it difficult to avoid harmful impacts on the natural environment.

Q5. This question is about the route for the line between London and the West Midlands: Do you agree that the Government’s proposed route, including the approach proposed for mitigating its impacts, is the best option for a new high speed rail line between London and the West Midlands?

A5. No.  The mitigation measures are inadequate. They do not take full account of the irreversible impacts on the natural environment. Barriers to wildlife corridors will be created and no matter how many trees are planted they cannot substitute for the destruction of several ancient woodlands and certain wildlife habitats.

Less direct routing which avoids environmentally sensitive areas should be a requirement for any new line. This is feasible if the need for a 400kmh high speed line is dropped in favour of the lower speeds of 320kmh currently used in mainland Europe.      

Q6. This question is about the Appraisal of Sustainability: Do you wish to comment on the Appraisal of Sustainability of the Government’s proposed route between London and the West Midlands that has been published to inform this consultation?

A6. Yes. Rather than the frankly inadequate Appraisal of Sustainability a full Strategic Environmental Assessment of the preferred and alternative routes should have been done.

Q7. This question is about blight and compensation: Do you agree with the options set out to assist those whose properties lose a significant amount of value as a result of any new high speed line?

A7. SEFS does not have a position on this.

Members and other environmental bodies have also responded as follows:
Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust
Chilterns Society
CPRE
Friends of the Earth
National Trust
RailFuture
RSPB
Woodland Trust  

Environment Agency

Although in sympathy with many of the goals set out in the consultation, including increasing capacity on the rail network, SEFS is opposed to the project as it is proposed.

We have noted the proposed mitigation measures to address the environmental impacts of the scheme but we consider that they fall far short of acceptable.

We are not convinced that this particular project will achieve the claimed benefits in respect of CO₂ reductions or modal shift.

Over the coming weeks we will post on the SEFS website what we consider to be our key issues, with a focus on alternative route options and objectives to meet sustainable transport goals.

Details of the consultation which runs until 29^th July and associated events can be seen on the DFT website

The meantime members have been developing their positions and current (everyone is still evolving policies and positions) details can be found below:

i) RSPB on their website
ii) Friends of the Earth briefing click here
iii) Friends of the Earth press release 20.12.10
iv) RailFuture press release December 2010
v) Wildlife Trust press release December 2010
vi) Berks, Bucks & Oxon press release December 2010
vii) CPRE briefing Getting Back on Track
viii) Campaign for Better Transport – Richard Hebditch Blog March 2011
ix) Right Lines Charter
x) Right Lines Charter – press release

In the meantime SEFS framework for developing it’s response to HS2 is outlined in our transport principles below:
1) We support the development of a National Rail Network which is efficient, convenient, reliable and comfortable to use and has competitively priced services.
2) SEFS is in favour of a longer-term strategic approach to the development of the network and supports the argument that there are capacity issues to be resolved if individuals and companies are to be encouraged to use rail rather than car, lorry or aircraft.
3) SEFS supports transport policies and schemes which are likely to lead to a shift from current journeys by road and air to more sustainable transport modes.
4) SEFS is in favour of reducing the need to travel and views with concern policies and interventions which might lead to an increased number of longer journeys.
5) SEFS supports transport policies and interventions which are likely to lead to a decrease in the overall climate-change emissions from the sector and a diminution in its ecological footprint.
6) SEFS is opposed to the construction of hard infrastructure which will or is likely to damage SSSIs and ancient woodlands, harm biodiversity, intrude on quality landscapes, sever wildlife corridors or damage the historic built environment.

A series of public information events will be held at locations along the proposed route. They will provide an opportunity to view the proposals, presenting information in a clear, accurate and accessible way, as well as offering the chance for you to speak to the HS2 team and officials from the Department for Transport. If you are unable to attend an event, the exhibition material will be available on the DFT HS2 website after each one.

A Friends of the Earth briefing on LTPs can be found here.
 
Extracts from four existing documents are presented in this LTP3 advice summary. For context it is recommended that you read the full versions using the web page references outlined in the document.
1.  Cycling: a local transport solution
2.  Promote public health: take action on active travel
3.  Local Transport Plan activist training days September 2009
4.  Oxfordshire Active Travel Strategy

You can also track the current progress of LTP3s in your area using this LTP3 South East December 2010 document.

You were stunned by Local Transport Plans I, amazed by Local Transport Plans II now be horrified by Local Transport Plans III!

But seriously folks, you may or may not be aware but your local council is currently working out how transport systems in your area will look beyond 2011.

So what is a Local Transport Plan (LTP): 

1. Supporting economic growth
2. Tackling climate change
3. Contributing to better safety, security and health
4. Promoting equality of opportunity
5. Improving quality of life and a healthy natural environment

There is obviously great scope in them (though it is not mandatory) to help in reducing carbon emissions and encouraging travel by foot, bike and public transport.

The process with in  local authorities is starting now (a spreadsheet of where councils are in the development of their plans will be coming to this article shortly but that information should be available on your local council website) but there is no need to wait for the consultations to comment. A group in Oxfordshire got together and  proactively drew up their thoughts in the Oxfordshire Active Travel Strategy on how their LTP should look. You could do the same.

More information on LTPs and how to influence them can be found on the CTC website and also in a detailed briefing from Friends of the Earth

 We’ll also be adding more on the SEFS website as and when it is available.

Eureka ! Gatwick Airport has outlined its 10-year green plan, including a bid to cut its carbon emissions by 50% by 2020, compared to 2009 levels. (That of course ignores the airport’s intentions to grow from 32 – 40 million passengers per year … massively increasing carbon emissions). The airport has all sorts of good intentions like reducing waste sent to landfill, composting out-of-date products, coffee grounds and peelings, using less energy and less water: “For example, we are in the process of upgrading the lighting in both of our terminals with low voltage equivalents and we have installed passenger sensors on our travelators and escalators, allowing operation to cease when not in use”. Remarkably it is even being applauded by the Carbon Trust for doing this, as they don’t seem to have appreciated the increased emissions from the flights ….. heigh ho !

Heathrow Victory in the High Court

- An Assessment by John Stewart, (Chairman of Hacan and of AirportWatch)

The Third Runway has not yet been dropped but the ruling in the High Court of Lord Justice Carnwath is hugely significant not just for Heathrow but for airport expansion across the country.

The ruling
He said that that the decision by the Government in January 2009 to give BAA the green light to draw up detailed plans for a third runway could not, in law, be regarded as a policy decision because it failed to take full account of policy developments in the areas of climate change and economics since the Air Transport White Paper was published in 2003.  The Government had admitted that it was the 2003 White Paper which framed the decision.  He also found that the Government had done insufficient work on how the increased number of passengers could be accommodated on the roads and railways to warrant the third terminal being given the green light.

Wider implications for other airport campaigns
It is, however, the finding around the White Paper that has most significance for both Heathrow and for expansion proposals at other airports.  The White Paper is Government policy.  As such all the expansion proposals at airports in the UK are based on it.  Until now the White Paper has not been able to be challenged at public enquiries because it was Government policy.

The Aviation White Paper killed off
This ruling changes all that.  The judge has ruled that the White Paper is out-of-date because it does not take account of crucial developments in policy in the fields of climate change and economics.  The White Paper is no longer ‘the bible’ campaigners cannot challenge.

Government reaction
The Government says that it will take account of new policy developments when drawing up its National Policy Statement in aviation, expected in 2009.  If Labour is still in power, we wait to see what will emerge.  But until then all expansion proposals based in the White Paper can be challenged.

A very significant judgment
The respected environment journalist, Geoffrey Lean, writing in the Daily Telegraph, has said that the judgment may be even more significant than that.  He is arguing that the effect of the ruling is that the Government is required to take into account the latest policy developments on climate change with regard to any new carbon-emitting development.

The future of a third runway
The future of the third runway?  The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have pledged to scrap it if they are in power after the forthcoming General Election.  This ruling makes it a lot more difficult for a Labour Government to proceed with it.

Click here for the full High Court ruling and for Sunday Times coverage of the High Court Decision