Protesters turn out for High Court drama
A CAMPAIGN group fighting the expansion of Stansted Airport has taken their case to the High Court. Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) is challenging the Government s recent decision to sanction BAA s application for an additional 10 million passengers a year
A CAMPAIGN group fighting the expansion of Stansted Airport has taken their case to the High Court.
Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) is challenging the Government's recent decision to sanction BAA's application for an additional 10 million passengers a year on Stansted Airport's runway.
The case started today (Tuesday) and will finish on Thursday February 26. It is being heard in the High Court, The Strand, London, by Sir Thayne Forbes. A decision is expected to be forthcoming very shortly after.
If SSE succeeds in its challenge it would result in the decision to allow Stansted to handle an additional 10 million passengers a year being quashed.
You may also want to watch:
SSE's legal action challenges three aspects of the Government's decision to approve the G1 application:
1. That the increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions, however substantial, can be disregarded in the decision to approve the extra flights;
Most Read
- 1 Kemi Badenoch MP secures new brief in September reshuffle
- 2 'We're not closing down day centres', says council
- 3 Libraries campaign group is concerned at consultation plan
- 4 Essex Austin Seven Club takes in Saffron Walden on tour
- 5 Circuit star William Gilbank sets sights on professional sport
- 6 Saffron Striders enjoy lots of choice with Great North Run the main event
- 7 Appeal to find Stansted teen, missing for five days
- 8 Saffron Walden triathletes doing themselves and their clubs proud at championships
- 9 Temporary council chief costing more than £1,000 per day
- 10 Saffron Walden all set for big green festival
2. That the economic impact on the UK trade deficit, however adverse, can be disregarded;
3. That the adverse noise impacts upon local residents and people living further afield cannot amount to a reason for refusal because to do so would frustrate Government policy.
