On 29/02/2020 08:00, tim... wrote:


"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 28/02/2020 12:15, tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/02/2020 08:51, tim... wrote:
The usual suspects not interested in discussing this then?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51658693.

The more interesting thing is campaigners are intending to challenge
road schemes on the same grounds which could have a beneficial
effect on
the economics of rail expansion and electrification schemes.


The same campaigners also challenge rail schemes, as we've seen with
HS2.

The same ruling will also apply to any other airport expansion,
which may
not please the government and London mayor quite so much.

The point about the ruling is that it didn't say that the airport
expansion, wasn't, or couldn't be, compliant with whatever law it is
that it's suppose to comply with, just noted that the proposals
hadn't been tested against that requirement, when they should have been.

If you read on, the problem for the proponents is that if it is tested
against the requirements, it cannot pass.

Whilst that is not an end result that I am unhappy with,

I'm not convinced that it is possible for someone to make that claim.

There is every possibility that a different proposal could pass.

There is not currently, or in the foreseeable future, any technology
that will enable it to pass.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.