Sat, 10
7 °C
Sun, 11
8 °C
Mon, 12
9 °C

Council looks to set aside £50,000 to fight Heathrow expansion

A crunch meeting on Thursday could see the Royal Borough set aside an extra £20,000 to launch a judicial review if the Government approves the expansion of Heathrow.

The Airports Commission is expected to deliver its ruling over whether to expand Gatwick or Heathrow Airport this month.

In the run up to that decision, the borough’s Cabinet Prioritisation Sub Committee will be holding a special meeting at Maidenhead Town Hall to discuss the council’s next move if the Airports Commission rules that Heathrow should be granted a third runway.

In June, the cabinet agreed to set aside £10,000 for legal advice and £20,000 should any judicial review be necessary with regards to a Heathrow expansion challenge.

But Thursday’s meeting could see an extra £20,000 set aside to launch a ‘robust’ judicial review, taking the total to £50,000.

The report for the meeting states: “The long held position of the council is to protect the environment of the Borough for the residents and in this respect to minimise the degree of noise population on the residents.”

The council has joined forces with the London boroughs of Hillingdon, Richmond and Wandsworth to oppose the building of a third runway at Heathrow.

In January the councils met to discuss what any potential legal case against Heathrow expansion could look like.

Thursday’s meeting starts at 9am.

Update 3pm:

A Heathrow spokesman said: “The Government’s decision on airport capacity will follow a rigorous, independent, £20 million, two and a half year deep-dive in to the issue, including a public consultation.

 “It confirmed that Heathrow would not delay compliance with EU air quality limits, would see fewer people affected by noise (subject to environmental conditions which we have met and exceeded) and was the best choice for expansion.

“Any judicial review would be bound to failure and would not affect the timeline for the delivery of an additional runway at Heathrow.”

Leave your comment

Share your opinions on

Characters left: 1500


  • Pursuer

    16:37, 19 October 2016

    And if Heathrow is selected then the construction work will join the chaos of the totally unnecessary 6+ years of converting the M4 into a SMART motorway. Wherever these exist, diversions, speed restrictions and all manner of obstacles are placed in the way of maintaining a reasonable speed, and the hard shoulder is full of parked and largely never moving plant & machinery.Diversions will clog the A4 and A308- Maidenhead will grind to a halt. If you think school run time is bad just wait and see- or better still try and drive through Bagshot and see what the endless M3 conversion has done.



  • GaruE

    10:23, 15 October 2016

    Terresa May has shown scant regard for people in her recent decisions for HS2, Fracking and Hinkley Point. Why should she change her mind on Heathrow? She does not care about the pollution, noise and years of inconvenience while the thirs runway is built. She only cares about money, shame on her.



  • Murray

    09:05, 12 October 2016

    Heathrow has so few supporters in the area, other than employees (who've been spooked into believing its expand or die), businesses who think it's a great idea to be directly linked to a city in China they've never heard of (let alone do business with) & not willing to pay for, & a series of lemming MPs bought into the aviation narrative of runway requirement. LHR's flights are over 70% leisure that could easily be re-deployed to other nearby airports, such as Stansted. Even RAF Northolt & Manston could be utilised. However you dice it, LHR is simply in the wrong place & affects 28% of all people in Europe affected by aircraft noise - 5 times its' nearest 'rival' Frankfurt. The facts borne from the Airport Commissions final report (p 147) is a net economic benefit of £1.4bn over a 60 year period! (UK GDP =£1,500bn/yr), for the mass destruction of 783 homes, another 4,000 unliveable within, additional unbearable noise, more pollution (already over legal NO2 40 µg/m3 limit) & complete road gridlock. With its foreign owners paying £24 million in corporation tax & paying its shareholders £2 billion at the same time, & the project itself needing a UK taxpayer bailout of up to £20 billion for surface access infrastructure (source TfL), you do the maths. It’s true LHR have the DfT & CAA in its' pocket, but fortunately the judiciary are different. Their comment to try & undermine local support for holding them legally to account is disgusting in the extreme. Money VERY well spent



Show all

Editor's Picks

Most read

Top Ten Articles