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.
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;
- 1 Sir Tom Jones to play Heritage Live concert at Audley End House & Gardens in Saffron Walden
- 2 Government accused of 'grotesque waste of taxpayers' money' after Stansted flight
- 3 New vehicles to catch Essex's criminals on the county's fast roads
- 4 Creamfields South Chelmsford 2022 line-up announced for Hylands Park
- 5 Plan to ease congestion at M11 junction 8 gets underway
- 6 Uttlesford District Council row over £4m 'black hole'
- 7 In pictures: Burns Night at Walden's The Railway Arms
- 8 Miss Disco's Valentine's date with fans at Saffron Walden's football club
- 9 Celebrating 20th anniversary of Harry Potter at Saffron Screen
- 10 Walden's Wizard of Oz snowflake trail winner is crowned
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.