Today sees the start of court proceedings challenging the government's controversial decision to give the go ahead to a third runway at Heathrow.

A coalition of thirteen organisations is backing the legal challenge. It is made up of local councils, leading green groups and residents' groups, representing millions of people.  The coalition's lawyers will be claiming in court that the consultation process was fundamentally flawed and that the decision to expand Heathrow is at odds with the UK's overall climate change targets. If they win, the government's decision to proceed with the runway will be overturned.

The organisations also argue, supported by Transport for London, that there is no evidence to support the government's claim that there will be enough public transport to serve the new runway.

The decision to proceed with a third runway was made by the then Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon in a statement to Parliament in January 2009.  He tried to win Parliament over by proposing a number of additional environmental measures.  The coalition is alleging that these measures mean the expansion is fundamentally different to the proposals on which the government consulted the public in 2007. Worse still, the government's lawyers are now backpedalling by claiming the new measures were not part of the decision to expand Heathrow.

One of the measures announced was a new target to bring carbon emissions from aviation back to 2005 levels by 2050. The government asked the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) how it could meet this target. The CCC responded by telling the government it would have to severely curtail its plans for airport expansion throughout the UK. The coalition argues that the expansion of Heathrow cannot now proceed, since the policy of which it is a part has been discredited.

Another of the measures would see the runway only being used at half its capacity until a review in 2020 could check to see if noise and air pollution as well as carbon targets could be met. But imposing this limit destroys the economic case for a third runway and will be no comfort to the residents of the Sipson, since their village would be destroyed either way.

Alistair McGowan, who is one of the owners of the 'Airplot' in Sipson, said:

"I'm here today because, like the residents of Sipson, I'm enraged about the government's seemingly unquenchable passion to tarmac over my land - land which I now own with over 65,000 people from around the world. I hope that the ministers who wouldn't listen to already suffering west Londoners, highly respected climate scientists or battling local councils will listen to the courts. I don't want to end up having to fend off BAA with a pitchfork and a large bull."

Speaking on behalf of the local councils Hillingdon leader Ray Puddifoot said:

"We've had no choice but to go to court to sort out the mess left behind by a decision that was little more than a quick fix. From the moment Geoff Hoon announced his decision to the House it has steadily unravelled. We now have the government's lawyers telling us that what the Secretary of State told MPs was not what he really meant.

"So while Hoon was saying that expansion would be limited to a half-used runway because of climate change concerns, the civil servants now say that it is not dependent on reductions in carbon emissions and or so-called greener planes. If it's only half a runway then that demolishes the economic case. But if the conditions which were meant to limit environmental damage are worthless and we are going to get a full capacity runway anyway, then we have all been duped.

"The history of Heathrow expansion is littered with broken promises, that's why it's so important we get the courts to sort out the deliberate ambiguity of the government's decisions."

Geraldine Nicholson, Chair of NoTRAG, said:

"A third runway would destroy our community.  Homes, schools, shops, pubs would all be demolished.  That is destruction on a massive scale.  What rubs even more salt into our wounds is our firm belief that the consultation process was seriously flawed."

Martin Harper, RSPB, Head of Sustainable Development said:

"We have said before that the government's decision to allow a third runway when we desperately need to reduce carbon emissions was fundamentally flawed.

Climate change threatens many species with extinction and we are already seeing its impacts with catastrophic declines in seabird numbers in parts of the North Sea. It is right that a bad decision such as this should be challenged"

HACAN Chair John Stewart said:

"Although it is clear that a third runway may well be scrapped after the General Election, we can't take anything for granted.  If we lose this legal challenge, it will not be the end of the world, but, if we win, it will make it ever more difficult for any government to build the third runway."

Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), said:

"Proceeding with the third runway would destroy not just a village and a large swathe of Green Belt but also tranquillity over a much wider area. Countryside, parks and gardens in and beyond north and west London would fall under the shadow of new flight paths and the din of thousands of extra flights."

Pete Lockley, Head of Transport Policy for WWF-UK said:

"The government's decision to allow expansion at Heathrow flies in the face of common sense, which is why we are asking the High Court to consider the case. A third runway will make it much more difficult to achieve our carbon reduction targets and doesn't justify its cost, in economic or environmental terms. The Committee on Climate Change has just advised that aviation growth must be severely curtailed by 2050. This should prompt a complete rethink of government aviation policy."

John Sauven, Executive Director of Greenpeace said:

"It's been clear from the start, that there has been huge opposition to this runway. Nearly 90% of the people who responded to the consultation opposed the expansion of Heathrow. Yet mysteriously the government gave the go ahead.

This gives a clear demonstration of how little they value the views of the public. Now we've got the chance to submit this process to legal scrutiny. We don't expect the courts to be any more impressed with it than we were."

Notes to Editors:

1. Six local authorities in West London (Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead) are claimants to the challenge, alongside   the local residents group (NoTRAG) and the national campaigning group against airport expansion HACAN. WWF-UK, Campaign to Protect Rural England and Greenpeace are also claimants. Transport for London is an independent party supporting the claim. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is an expert witness. The challenge is also supported by Kensington and Chelsea and the Mayor of London. The local authorities are all members of the 2M Group which comprises 24 local councils opposed to Heathrow expansion with a combined population of 5 million.
2. In February 2007, Greenpeace won a Judicial Review against the government's energy review, which backed a new generation of nuclear power stations. As a result the government was forced to re-run the public consultation.
3. If a third runway at Heathrow airport were to be built, the airport would become the single largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the UK. Unrestrained airport expansion would make it impossible for the UK to play its part in tackling climate change. The government has committed the UK to cuts of at least 80% in CO2 emissions by 2050. Research from the respected Tyndall Centre shows that if the industry is allowed to expand as predicted, aviation emissions alone would make it impossible to meet this target.
4. Aviation emissions do more damage to the climate because they are released at altitude - known as global warming impact. Scientists multiply aviation emissions (which include other gases not just CO2) by 2 to 3 times to calculate their increased climate impact
5. Historically small increases in the efficiency of planes have been overwhelmed by an unrestrained growth in flights. There is no evidence to suggest that this will not be the case in the future if action is not taken to constrain expansion. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution found that the industry's targets are ‘clearly aspirations rather than projections'.
6. The decision on Heathrow is underpinned by the government's aviation policy, set out in the 2003 Future of Air Transport White Paper, which promotes a policy of airport expansion across the UK. The climate science has changed significantly since 2003, as has the law and the policy context - notably the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Committee on Climate Change's 2009 aviation report which says that aviation growth needs to be limited to around half of that planned in the White Paper.
7. All the claimants are represented by Harrison Grant (solicitors) instructing Nigel Pleming QC of 39 Essex Street, Nathalie Lieven QC and David Forsdick of Landmark Chambers.

NEW PRIME MINISTER Gordon Brown acted unlawfully during his first appearance at the despatch box for Prime Minister's Questions, according to lawyers acting for Greenpeace.

Following a High Court decision earlier this year, no government decision to support new nuclear power stations can lawfully be made before a public consultation has been carried out. However, during PMQs on Wednesday, Gordon Brown ignored the Court's ruling and sabotaged the ongoing consultation by stating that: "We have made the decision to continue with nuclear power."

In doing so, Brown has performed a public u-turn on his promise to listen to the people after little more than a week in power.

In a letter to the Prime Minister, lawyers for Greenpeace have asked him to "immediately and unreservedly withdraw the government's decision to support the building of a new generation of nuclear power stations."

In February, Mr Justice Sullivan ruled that the previous energy review, which backed new nuclear power stations, was not the ‘fullest public consultation' the Government had committed itself to before making a decision to back new nuclear power stations. The commitment had been made in the earlier energy white paper in 2003.

Mr Justice Sullivan said that the consultation exercise was "seriously flawed" and that the process was "manifestly inadequate and unfair" because insufficient information had been made available by the Government for consultees to make an "intelligent response".

John Sauven, director of Greenpeace, said: "Brown has ridden roughshod over a High Court decision. And, by publicly stating that he'd already come to a decision while carrying out what is now very obviously a sham consultation, he's acted unlawfully.

"Brown said he'd be a different kind of leader, that he'd listen to the British public, but after just a week in power he's said he doesn't care what people think about nuclear power, he's going for it regardless. We thought we'd seen the back of this kind of politics when Tony Blair left office." 

For more information or a copy of the letter to Gordon Brown, please contact the Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255.

The government's decision to back a new fleet of nuclear power stations was today declared to be unlawful in the High Court.

The government will have to conduct a new, fuller review if they want to justify the future of nuclear power in the UK.

In the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Mr Justice Sullivan agreed with Greenpeace, who brought the case, that the energy review was not the 'fullest public consultation' the government had committed itself to before making a decision to back new nuclear power stations. The commitment had been made in the earlier energy white paper in 2003.

Mr Justice Sullivan said that the consultation exercise was "seriously flawed and that the process was manifestly inadequate and unfair" because insufficient information had been made available by the Government for consultees to make an "intelligent response".

The court had heard last week that the government failed to present clear proposals and information on key issues surrounding a new generation of nuclear power stations, such as dealing with radioactive waste and financial costs. Greenpeace and other groups were also denied the opportunity to comment on relevant documents which the government failed to disclose.

Sarah North, head of Greenpeace's nuclear campaign, said: "The government's so-called consultation on nuclear power was obviously a sham, and we're pleased that the Judge has agreed with us.

"The government completely failed to consult adequately and even kept relevant documents to themselves. They've now been forced back to the drawing board to conduct a proper and lengthy review.

"Nuclear power is a dangerous distraction from the real solutions to climate change as it only represents 3.6 per cent of our total energy. It's entirely obvious that there are more efficient, effective, safer and cheaper ways than nuclear power to meet our energy needs and cut climate change emissions. 10 new nuclear power stations would only cut C02 emissions by 4 per cent. As well as being too little, it will also be too late. Climate wrecking emissions need to be cut now, not in 20 years."

For more information, contact the Greenpeace press office on 020 7865 8255.

Why nuclear power isn't the answer to climate change:

• 10 new nuclear power stations would only cut the UK's C02 emissions by 4 per cent. This would be wiped out by the predicted rise in aircraft emissions alone.
• New nuclear power is not a relevant or timely response to the immediate need to reduce C02 emissions. Any nuclear new build programme would not see the first reactor come online until around 2018 at the earliest, with the main delivery of the programme not arriving until around 2025-2030. C02 emissions need to be cut years before.
• Nuclear power's effect on C02 emissions is very small. Although nuclear power currently provides about 20% of our electricity (reactor problems regularly reduce this), it only provides 3.6 per cent of the UK's total energy.
• Nuclear power stations only marginally address hot water and central heating needs, and don't meet needs for transport at all.
• There is no safe solution to nuclear waste.
• There is a much cheaper, better way to meet our energy needs and cut C02 emissions. A decentralised energy system will slash C02 and cost far less than a new generation of nuclear power stations, making maximum use of combined heat and power and renewable energy.