DACB warns of legal challenge to new Heathrow runway due to 'serious errors' by DfT
DACB client Heathrow Hub alleges airport expansion proposals were unfairly judged
June 20, 2018 at 06:55 AM
2 minute read
DAC Beachcroft (DACB) has warned that controversial plans for a third runway at Heathrow could face a legal challenge due to "serious errors" by the Department for Transport (DfT).
The firm has written to secretary of state for transport Chris Grayling MP, on behalf of its client Heathrow Hub, to highlight errors in the Airports National Policy Statement, which will be put to MPs for approval in the coming weeks.
Heathrow Hub, which is campaigning for an extended northern runway rather than the new development, says the government "wrongly claimed" that an extended runway would offer lower capacity than a third runway despite being "cheaper, simpler, quieter and quicker" to construct.
DACB has submitted a 21-page report to the DfT outlining the mistake. Planning and environmental partner Christopher Stanwell told Legal Week: "When the airport commission asked people to submit their proposals for Heathrow expansion, it did so on the basis of the proposals expanding the airport's capacity to 700,000 air transport movements.
"It then transpired that it had judged Heathrow Airport Limited's third runway proposal on it increasing its capacity to 740,000 air transport movements. This influenced the Airport Commission's assessment of the relative benefits. The extended runway can also accommodate 740,000 air transport movements, but it was not assessed on this basis."
Air transport movements are any landings or takeoffs that transport passengers. Stanwell added that Heathrow Hub feels its complaints to the DfT and Airports Commission have been ignored and that the expansion decision is not being made using all of the available information.
Heathrow Hub director Jock Lowe added: "The errors the DfT have made in relation to capacity are fundamental and explain why passengers and airlines are being saddled with Heathrow Airport's expensive, complicated third runway instead of our cheaper, simpler, quieter plan."
MPs are expected to vote on the proposals for the third runway within two weeks. If approved, it will pass to a public consultation and judicial review before the government can give planning permission.
The Labour Party today (20 June) dropped its formal support for the planned third runway, citing its environment impact and fears that its benefit would not be felt across the country.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSouth African Legal Council to Oppose Norton Rose Over Ethnicity Score System
3 minute readIsrael's Rushed Corporate Tax May Spark Law Firm Mergers, Boost Large Firms Including Gornitzky
4 minute readEx-Mayer Brown Corporate Lawyer Leads Race for German Chancellor in Snap Election
4 minute readMexico Dissolves Antitrust Authority in Setback to Competition
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250