Plan B Earth v. Secretary of State for Transport

Two environmental nonprofits, Friends of the Earth and Plan B Earth, and other claimants sued the Secretary of State for Transport Chris Grayling for the decision to expand the Heathrow Airport. They alleged that the decision violated United Kingdom citizens' human rights because of the detrimental effects it would have on the environment.

Background
Heathrow Airport is one of the busiest airports in the world, with 80 million passengers a year. The expansion would bring 700 more planes per day--a big rise in carbon emissions. In June of 2018, the UK Government issued the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), which adopted a plan for the construction of a new runway and associated infrastructure at the Heathrow Airport. There was widespread criticism and multiple parties including local authorities, environmental charities, and Heathrow Hub Limited (which proposed an alternative plan for airport expansion). These claims were combined into one hearing at the Divisional Court, with the Court deciding Heathrow Hub Ltd.'s competition law case decided separately.

Although the Divisional Court denied the claims, Plan B, Friends of the Earth, and local claimants filed in the Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs argued that the Planning Act 2008 and the Human Rights Act 1998 are violated by the ANPS. The Planning Act states that the Secretary must pursue sustainable development and mitigating climate change, meaning the Secretary should also consider the opinions of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), the Paris Agreement, and its commitments to international climate change targets as stated in Section 10. The claimants stated that the ANPS was decided without consideration of these factors and was irrational. The Court was asked by the plaintiffs to declare the Secretary's decision illegal under Section 5 of the Planning Act. Section 5 requires the Secretary to explain how “government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change” has been taken into account in their decision.

Relevant Law and Principles

 * Paris Agreement
 * Human Rights Act 1998
 * Climate Change Act 2008
 * Planning Act 2008
 * Section 5
 * Section 6
 * Section 10
 * Airports National Policy Statement

Ruling
The Court of Appeals overturned the Divisional Court's decision in February of 2020, striking down the ANPS. The Secretary’s failure to consider the Paris Agreement in the decision-making meant that the Planning Act's requirements for a national policy statement were not properly complied with and, therefore, "legally fatal" to the ANPS. However, the Court only focused on the climate change issue, not considering the Divisional Court’s dismissal of the other challenges, related to air and noise pollution, traffic, and the cost of the runway.

The UK Government appealed the decision to the UK Supreme Court, which overturned the lower court's ruling in May 2020. The approval process for a third runway at Heathrow International Airport could move forward, on the grounds that the government sufficiently took into account climate impacts with regard to previous, less stringent, climate goals. The Supreme Court found that the Paris Agreement could not constitute “government policy" under Section 5. Also, the Supreme Court decided that because the ANPS had acknowledged the emissions targets in the Climate Change Act 2008, it had indirectly taken the Paris Agreement into account since the two are compatible. The Supreme Court didn't allow Plan B to argue on human rights grounds.

Takeaways
Regarding the Court of Appeal's decision to strike down the ANPS, it was a major turning point for climate litigation. The decision was the first major ruling in the world centered around the Paris Agreement and it showed that governments' commitment to the Agreement is not only for appearances, they must adhere to the targets. The Court of Appeal's ruling also demonstrates that infrastructure development with dangerous climate effects can be intercepted by international climate agreements, so it's possible that other proposed projects could face litigation if climate change impacts aren't considered.

Even though the Supreme Court reinstated the Heathrow expansion approval process, there's still the question of whether or not the expansion will move forward or is a good idea long-term. Plan B, Heathrow Hub Ltd., and other entities have formally requested a review of the ANPS under Section 6 of the Planning Act. Despite the Supreme Court's decision, the case still inspired other litigation and will affect the government's decision-making in the future.

Links

 * Friends of the Earth
 * Friends of the Earth UK
 * Plan B Earth
 * Heathrow Hub Limited
 * Climate Change Committee
 * Legal Analysis of the Court of Appeal's Decision, Journal of Environmental Law
 * Heathrow's Expansion Plan
 * Court of Appeal Judgement
 * Supreme Court Judgement