000			02123cam a2200193 4500
001			ABS68782
008			050309n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u129010
041			_aeng
245			_aR v SoS for Transport and four interested parties ex p Wandsworth LBC, Hillingdon LBC and three others: R v SoS for Transport and three interested parties ex p Essex CC, Uttlesford DC, Hertfordshire CC, East Hertfordshire DC and North Hertfordshire DC
260			_c2005
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[2005] 08 EG 191(1)
520			_a[2005] EWHC 20 (Admin), 21 December 2004. Questions if policies outlined in the White Paper "The future of air transport" (J122315) were supported by consultation as argued by SoS Transport. Two groups applied for judicial review re the lawfulness of certain decisions contained in the White Paper. The first group (C1) sought to have the whole of chapter 11 of the White Paper dealing with airports policy in southeast England quoshed. The second group (C2) sought a quoshing order in respect of three policies in chapter 11: that the first new runway to be built in southeast England would be at Stansted Airport; that it would be the wide-space runway as presented in the consultation document and that additional airport capacity would be provided at Luton Airport. "Held": the decision-making process leading to the adoption of the policies in chapter 11 of the White Paper was lawful, subject to the qualification that the statement that the second Stansted runway should be the wide-spaced runway option presented in the consultation document, was not a fair outcome of the consultation. Furthermore the White Paper managed to convey unfairly that the Luton runway extension proposal had been consulted on and was supported in policy terms.
650			_aR V SOS TRANSPORT AND OTHERS EX P WANDSWORTH LBC AND OTHERS
650			_aTRANSPORT WHITE PAPER
690			_aPROPERTY-INFRASTRUCTURE-AIR TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2005/20.html _zView thejudgment at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c74897 _d74897