This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/england/7907645.stm

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Legal fight against airport plans Legal fight against airport plans
(about 3 hours later)
Controversial plans for an expansion of Stansted Airport in Essex which were given the go-ahead by the government are facing a High Court challenge. Plans for an expansion of Stansted Airport in Essex which were given the go-ahead by the government are facing a High Court challenge.
Airport owner BAA wants to increase passenger numbers from 25 million to 35 million a year and flights leaving the airport from 241,000 to 264,000 a year.Airport owner BAA wants to increase passenger numbers from 25 million to 35 million a year and flights leaving the airport from 241,000 to 264,000 a year.
Lawyers for the Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) group will argue against the decision in a three-day hearing. Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) lawyers said proper consideration was not given to "adverse effects".
BAA said it was for the government to defend its decisions and policies. The hearing in London is expected to last three days.
The protest group has accused ministers of disregarding the climate change and noise impacts of the expansion. The protest group has accused ministers of disregarding the climate change and noise impact of the expansion.
SSE is saying nothing new today and is simply re-running its losing case at the public inquiry Nick Barton, BAASSE is saying nothing new today and is simply re-running its losing case at the public inquiry Nick Barton, BAA
Lawyers for the campaigners will argue that the government misapplied its own policies in breach of clear assurances previously provided. Paul Stinchcombe, for SSE, told the judge, Sir Thayne Forbes, there had been a failure to take proper account of the adverse effects on UK trade and the additional noise that would be suffered.
SSE chairman Peter Sanders said: "We have no choice but to mount a legal challenge to this decision. He said these issues were disregarded, despite the government having acknowledged it was right to consider them when deciding whether to approve the expansion project.
"When it reaches the stage where the government is prepared to disregard the climate change impacts, the noise impacts and even the interests of the UK economy in order to satisfy its obsession for airport expansion, then it is time to ask the High Court to intervene. He said: "It would appear this is largely attributable to a simple error of law made by the secretaries of state.
"The issues at stake here go far wider than Stansted." "They decided that matters were immaterial (to the decision-making process) when they were material."
Nick Barton, commercial and development director BAA Stansted, said: "Today's challenge by SSE is against government policy, not the evidence we (BAA) gave to the public inquiry The government is defending the expansion project, saying SSE's arguments were "plainly incorrect". BAA and Stansted Airport Ltd are listed as "interested parties" in the action.
Nick Barton, commercial and development director BAA Stansted, said: "Today's challenge by SSE is against government policy, not the evidence we (BAA) gave to the public inquiry.
"SSE is saying nothing new today and is simply re-running its losing case at the public inquiry."SSE is saying nothing new today and is simply re-running its losing case at the public inquiry.
"As an interested party, we will play an active role in the hearing but it is ultimately for the government to defend its decisions and policies - and we are confident the government can defend itself very robustly.""As an interested party, we will play an active role in the hearing but it is ultimately for the government to defend its decisions and policies - and we are confident the government can defend itself very robustly."