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 Tools collection is a huge success
- 2 Revealed: images of new hospital that aims to be carbon neutral
- 3 Hotel on Duxford IWM site given go-ahead after council re-vote
- 4 A Big Deal for Fairycroft House as comedy club makes comeback
- 5 Fête de la Musique returns to Walden - with nine music venues
- 6 Ibiza legend Dave Pearce and Clockwork Orange Andy Manston at garden party
- 7 Saffron Walden constituency could change shape in boundary review
- 8 Freedom Day has been delayed by up to four weeks
- 9 Motorcyclist in hospital after Broxted collision
- 10 Things to do in June - from open gardens to live music and dancing
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.
