Nos hacemos eco de esta noticia publicada en los medios británicos el pasado 26 de marzo y difundida en España por la agencia Europa Press, en la que se informa de la paralización de la construcción de la tercera pista del proyecto de ampliación del Aeropuerto de Londres-Heathrow.
El proyecto de construcción de la tercera pista se aprobó en enero de 2009. Un año después los tribunales británicos dictan auto parando el proyecto antes de que se inicie la obra, y ordenando la revisión de la autorización por insuficiencia del trámite de participación, consulta o debate público y por la insostenibilidad de una autorización contraria a la estrategia del Reino Unido contra el cambio climático.
¿Qué habría sucedido en España? Primero que los tribunales, en caso de admitir el caso, habrían tardado años en dictar sentencia, por lo que el proyecto ya se habría ejecutado. En el hipotético caso de una resolución judicial a tiempo y desfavorable a la ejecución del proyecto, el gobierno de turno la habría considerado de interés general (de las constructoras no de los ciudadanos), habría hecho caso omiso a la resolución judicial y habría seguido adelante, o peor, habría cambiado la Ley para llevarlo a cabo alegando que es por nuestro bien.
Desde Las mentiras de Barajas felicitamos a los demandantes y les animamos a que sigan hasta el final, nos descubrimos ante la justicia británica, independiente y ejemplar donde las haya, y esperamos, como así será, que el gobierno de Gordon Brown acate el auto.
Mucho tenemos que aprender del resto de Europa y en particular de este caso, en el que el interés general es el interés de los ciudadanos.
Heathrow protesters win third runway court victory
High court rules that decision to expand Heathrow airport must be reconsidered in respect to UK climate change policy
Londres, 26 Mar. (The Guardian)
Climate change protesters demonstrate with a conga line at Heathrow. Photograph: Andy Rain/EPA
The government's plans for a third runway at Heathrow
were dealt a blow today after a high court judge agreed with campaigners that climate change threats had not been taken seriously enough.The government's plans for a third runway at Heathrow
In a complex judgment, Lord Justice Carnwath declined to quash the controversial planning proposal but branded the original position adopted in the government's authorisation as untenable.
The judge ordered Whitehall officials to give a formal undertaking that they would carry out a further policy review.
The lengthy judgment was hailed as a victory by both the transport department and the coalition of local councils, green groups and residents who had gone to the courts objecting to the plans for a third runway, saying it was inconsistent with government targets to cut carbon emissions.
On the question of whether the government had taken threats to global warming into consideration sufficiently, the judge remarked: "The [objectors'] submissions add up, in my view, to a powerful demonstration of the potential significance of developments in climate change policy since the 2003 white paper. They are clearly matters which will need to be taken into account under the new airports NPS [national policy statement]."
But he added: "I am not able, at least on the material before me, to hold that any of these points amounts to a 'show-stopper', in the sense that the only rational response would be to abandon the whole project at this stage."
In the course of his judgment, Lord Justice Carnwath also observed: "I find myself unable wholly to support the position taken by either party".
A further hearing is due next month to consider costs and whether fresh legal orders need to be made.
Ministers insisted that today's ruling would have little practical impact on their current planning policy while campaigners – who posed for photographers with champagne glasses outside the royal courts of justice in central London – relished the judicial reproaches and insisted it would ultimately prevent construction.
The Conservative leader, David Cameron, whose party opposes a third runway, claimed the judgment was a severe embarrassment for the government: "[Their] policy is in tatters. They made the wrong judgment about this, we made the right judgment ... There is no case for it on environmental grounds, there is no strong business case for it."
Speaking in Brussels, however, the prime minister, Gordon Brown, insisted a new runway was vital to "help secure jobs and underpin economic growth", adding that the government had backed an extra runway "only after a detailed assessment showing that the strict environmental limits for expansion could be met".
The coalition opposed to the new runway includes WWF-UK, Greenpeace and the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). In a joint statement, the groups said: "If the government wants to pursue its plans for Heathrow expansion it must now go back to square one and reconsider the entire case for the runway."
Hayes and Harlington Labour MP John McDonnell, who has led the campaign against the expansion of Heathrow for 30 years, said: "In essence, this judgment means that the game is up for a third runway at Heathrow and I am calling upon the government to accept the inevitable and lift this threat to my community."
But the transport secretary, Lord Adonis, countered their claims: "I welcome this court ruling. Heathrow is Britain's principal hub airport. It is vital not only to the national economy but also enables millions of citizens to keep in touch with their friends and family and to take a well-deserved holiday.
"The airport is currently operating at full capacity. A new runway at Heathrow will help secure jobs and underpin economic growth as we come out of recession. It is also entirely compatible with our carbon-reduction target, as demonstrated in the recent report by the Committee on Climate Change
.
A transport department spokesman insisted officials had accepted during the hearings that they would take developments in climate change into account in the preparation of the national policy statement on the new runway, due in 2011. "BAA are still free to bring forward a planning application," he added.
A transport department spokesman insisted officials had accepted during the hearings that they would take developments in climate change into account in the preparation of the national policy statement on the new runway, due in 2011. "BAA are still free to bring forward a planning application," he added.
Un juez insta a Londres a repetir las consultas públicas sobre la ampliación de Heathrow (Ferrovial)
Londres, 26 Mar. (EUROPA PRESS)
El Gobierno británico deberá abrir un nuevo periodo de consultas públicas sobre el proyecto de ampliación del aeropuerto de Heathrow, propiedad de BAA (Ferrovial), según una sentencia emitida por los tribunales del país.
El auto puede suponer un retraso en el proyecto, que pasa fundamentalmente por la construcción de una tercera pista en el aeródromo y supondrá una inversión de unos 9.000 millones de libras (alrededor de 10.000 millones de euros). Su calendario de ejecución fijaba el inicio de las obras en 2015 y su conclusión en 2019.
El Gobierno autorizó en enero de 2009 esta ampliación, pese al fuerte rechazo de ecologistas, de la oposición y de localidades próximas al aeródromo, que ya avanzaron su intención de iniciar medidas legales.
El auto emitido por el juez Robert Carnwath no entra a valorar los eventuales problemas medioambientales que esgrimen los colectivos que se oponen a la tercera pista de Heathrow. Se limita a indicar que el proceso por el que dio 'luz verde' al proyecto debe revisarse de nuevo, sobre todo en los aspectos relacionados con el cambio climático, por considerar que es "insostenible", según 'Times Online'.
En su opinión, considera que la ampliación del aeródromo es una cuestión de relevancia nacional y debe por ello suscitar un debate público.
De su lado, BAA, grupo controlado por Ferrovial propietario de Heathrow y otros cinco aeropuertos británicos, convino en señalar que la concesión de los necesarios permisos para construir la tercera pista de Heathrow es una "importante decisión" para Reino Unido y que, por tanto, requiere un "amplio proceso de consultas públicas".
En opinión del operador de aeropuertos, en su auto el juez se refiere a la necesidad de realizar estas consultas y no entra en los argumentos a favor o en contra de la ampliación, proyecto que BAA sigue considerando necesario para garantizar la capacidad futura de Heathrow como único 'hub' internacional de Reino Unido.