Airport campaigners headed to Downing Street today to present the new Prime Minister with a legal Deed of Trust containing the names of over 90,000 people who jointly own a plot of land at the centre of the proposed Heathrow runway development, and to thank David Cameron and Nick Clegg for agreeing to officially scrap the planned expansion.

The ‘Airplot' campaign to buy the land and divide up ownership was launched by Emma Thompson and Alistair McGowan last year as a way to thwart airport operator BAA's plans to tarmac over the village of Sipson a mile to the north of Heathrow.

The deeds have now closed, and with 91,000 people signed up as beneficial owners of the land any government which had tried to build the runway would have faced a significant legal headache. Among the owners of the one acre plot are Deputy PM Nick Clegg, dozens of MPs, celebrities, local residents and people from around the world concerned about climate change. David Cameron agreed to have a tree planted on the land in his name.

One of the owners of the land is Good Life actor Richard Briers. He said:

"What great news it was when they said they wouldn't be building their silly runway. Lots of us have been very worried about it, not just because we live in west London but because of the harm it would have done to the environment. There are so many people named on our deed, it's terribly heavy, but when Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg look through it they'll see there are more than ninety thousand people who own our lovely little plot of land in the middle of the new runway site. I'm sure they'll all be very pleased to hear the runway is being officially scrapped."

Greenpeace also revealed today the winner of a high-profile architectural competition to design a fort to be constructed on the plot of land to defend it from the bulldozers if necessary. A panel of judges including Turner prize winner Rachel Whiteread sifted through entries from 67 architects and architectural practices before choosing a design for an intricate tunnel network submerged beneath a purpose-built hill.

Greenpeace had committed to building the fortress and occupying it to peacefully defend the iconic plot if BAA continued to push for the runway. The winning design - by London architects Alastair Parvin and Lukas Barry - is a defendable structure that would be collectively created by the thousands of individuals who opposed the runway plans, each person contributing a sack of earth to build up the fortress. Once built, Greenpeace were planning to keep the design of the tunnel network within the structure a carefully guarded secret.

Other entries included a "Martello hive" - an adventure playground which doubles as an underground complex for activists - and a rubber house made from the thousands of aircraft tyres that are discarded at Heathrow each year.

Pictures of the winning design and other entries can be viewed here: www.greenpeace.org.uk/airplot_winners. (High res versions available from contact number below.)

Commenting on the winning design for a fortress to be built on the land, competition judge Rachel Whiteread OBE said:

"Essentially this is a defensive and very proactive design, but it's also a quietly poetic one too. It's a simple hill - almost like a burial mound which is something we've seen traditionally across England and worldwide. It will be built using these earth bags - which people can even bring from their gardens - and this really excited us, the fact that people will be investing in the structure, and will be involved in the making of it. It's very exciting and is a design which works on so many levels."

The winning architects said: "What really grabbed us about this project was that it was an opportunity to explore a fundamentally different way of making things. Where traditional architecture has always been built by the few to impress upon the many, this would be the opposite: a structure built by the many to impress upon the few. We think it will be the world's first truly 'crowd-funded' structure."

An exhibition of the entries to the competition to design the fortress will be held at the Oxo Bargehouse gallery on London's Southbank from Wednesday 2nd June to Sunday 6th June. Members of the public are invited to view the stunning entries and decide for themselves if the judges got it right.

ENDS

For more call Greenpeace on 020 7865 8255 / 07801 212967

Notes:

• The campaign against a third runway at Heathrow airport is a frontline in the battle against climate change. A third runway would, if it was used to capacity, double the number of passengers passing through the airport and lead to 202,000 extra planes flying over London every year. Not only does that mean that millions of Londoners' lives would be further blighted by noise and air pollution but also that Heathrow airport would be the biggest single source of carbon dioxide in the UK, bigger than Drax power station. At full capacity, the airport would emit 23.6 million tonnes of CO2 every year - that's equivalent to the emissions of 54 of the least polluting countries combined.
• Mike Seifert, the solicitor Greenpeace engaged to create as many legal owners of the land as possible. said: "It was a fascinating challenge to structure a land purchase so thousands of people can have a stake, and a voice, in a field. In the end we settled on the idea of people becoming beneficial owners of the land. Having this number of people owning a piece of land collectively is highly unusual and we think may be unprecedented in law."
• Alastair Parvin and Lukas Barry are architecture graduates and designers working in London. More of their work and writing can be found published at www.bemakeshift.co.uk
• The winning entries will be shown 2-6 June at the Bargehouse, Oxo Tower Wharf, Bargehouse Street, South Bank, London SE1 9PH, 11am - 6pm daily, admission free. For more information: www.greenpeace.org.uk/oxo

The Government’s Heathrow policy is in tatters this morning after the High Court ruled that ministers' decision to give a green light to the proposed third runway does not hold any weight.  The judge dismissed the Government’s claims to the contrary as ‘untenable in law and common sense’.

If the Government wants to pursue its plans for Heathrow expansion it must now go back to square one and reconsider the entire case for the runway.

The implications of today’s ruling are profound, not just for Heathrow but for airport expansion plans across the UK.  Lord Justice Carnwath ruled that the 2003 Air Transport White Paper – the foundation of expansion plans across the country - is obsolete because it is inconsistent with the Climate Change Act 2008.

The judge expressed real concern over the “hardship caused to the local community by uncertainty” over the third runway. The coalition which brought the successful legal challenge is now calling on the Government to end the uncertainty and scrap the runway plans once and for all.

The judge ruled that:

•    If the Government decides to push ahead with the runway project it must now review the climate change implications of Heathrow expansion, the economic case for a third runway, and the issue of how additional passengers would get to a bigger airport.

•    The Government’s entire aviation policy must now be reviewed to take into account the implications of the 2008 Climate Change Act. The judge found that “the claimants’ submissions add up, in my view, to a powerful demonstration of the potential significance of developments in climate change policy since the 2003 Air Transport White Paper. They are clearly matters which will need to be taken into account under the new Airports National Policy Statement.”(1)

•    On the economic case for Heathrow expansion he would be ‘surprised’ if the recent tripling of the estimated cost to society of emitting carbon did not have ‘a significant effect’ on the economic case for the runway. The judge also said that “it makes no sense to treat the economic case as settled in 2003.”

•    On the issue of surface access he said the claimants’ case – that there is no credible plan in place to transport millions of extra passengers to an expanded Heathrow - was ‘justified’. Significantly, he noted that the Government was “unable to provide a convincing answer” in court when it was pressed about over-crowding on the Piccadilly underground line that would result from construction of a third runway.

The judge is now inviting the Government to sign a legally binding undertaking that it will not base future aviation policy solely on its 2003 white paper. A further court hearing is expected to take place next month to examine the Government's response to the judge's request. At the same hearing the coalition will seek costs and fully expects to recover those costs from the Government.

Cllr Ray Puddifoot speaking on behalf of the local councils said:
“This is a spectacular victory for our residents. The Government had been trying to close down debate on the true economic impact of a third runway by presenting it as a done deal.

“Today’s ruling has blown that position apart. The Government just did not want to have to take on board the real consequences of new climate change laws. The judge made it clear the figures just did not add up.

“If after this ministers are still intent on pressing ahead with expansion they will have to go back to the beginning and justify the whole economic case in public. Knowing what we now know about rising carbon costs this is an argument they cannot win.
“The third runway is effectively dead because it cannot survive the proper economic and environmental scrutiny which the Government tried to avoid. As local councils we call on the Prime Minister to do to the decent thing and bury this discredited policy.”


Geraldine Nicholson, Chair of NoTRAG, said:
“As local residents, we now demand that the Government drops all plans for a 3rd runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow so that we can cast off the 8 years of blight and start to rejuvenate our communities.”

Greenpeace executive director John Sauven said:
“This ruling leaves the Government’s Heathrow decision in tatters. Ministers will now have to go back to the drawing board and conduct a broad consultation on key issues where their case is extremely weak. The third runway was already on life support, but with this ruling it’s hard to even find a pulse. This shows that David Cameron and Nick Clegg backed the right horse when they pledged to scrap the third runway, and it makes any Conservative U-turn after the election all but politically impossible.”

David Nussbaum, CEO of WWF-UK, said:
"We are delighted with today’s judgement. It deals a body blow to the third runway, but more than that it makes it clear that the Government's whole policy of airport expansion must be reviewed in order to bring it into line with the Climate Change Act."

"Today's landmark ruling has implications that could resonate far wider than the aviation sector. For a judge to tell the Government that it cannot build huge pieces of carbon-intensive infrastructure without considering the long-term consequences is a resounding win in the fight to tackle climate change. It is also a further indication of the need for the UK to make a swift transition to a low carbon economy. WWF would now urge the Government to focus on green investment, encouraging alternative ways of connecting with people wherever possible, such as high speed rail and videoconferencing, rather than relying on carbon-heavy methods such as flying.”

Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said:
"The Government said there could be no argument about the need for a third runway. This was undemocratic and it was wrong.

"We were forced to bring this legal case to give people the right to challenge the expansion of Heathrow. The High Court has now made clear that a fundamental review of aviation policy is needed. This not just a victory for people living around Heathrow or around other airports, it is a victory for everyone who wants a tranquil countryside and a democratic planning system."

HACAN Chair John Stewart said:
“This is an utterly damning verdict for the Government.  It not only raises very serious concerns about a third runway at Heathrow, it also calls into question the Government’s entire aviation policy.  This really could be the final nail in the coffin for a third runway.”

Martin Harper, the RSPB’s Head of Sustainable Development, said:
“Right from the start, we have argued that building a third runway at a time when we are battling to reduce our carbon emissions made no sense.

“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.

“Concerns about climate change are at the heart of today’s judgement. The clear message from the High Court is that Government must now take those concerns into account.”

ENDS

Contacts:
For the London councils: Steve Mayner 020 8871 7524 / 07860 481 368/ Emma Marsh 01895 556 064 and 07780913334
For Greenpeace: Ben Stewart - 07801 212 967
For WWF: Jo Sargent - 01483 412375/ 07867 697519
For local residents: John Stewart – 07957 385 650/Geraldine Nicholson – 07710 523369
For Campaign to Protect Rural England: Ralph Smyth – 020 7981 2825/ Jack Neill-Hall 07739 332 796 (out of hours)
For RSPB: John Clare on 01767 680551

NOTES TO EDITORS
1.)    National Policy Statements (NPSs) are a key part of the new planning system that was established by the Planning Act 2008. They are strategic planning documents will set out the  national  need for major infrastructure developments  such as power stations, ports, airports, roads  and transmission lines. When an application is submitted for such a development above a certain threshold, there will be a presumption in favour of granting permission. The Government has said it intends to publish a draft Airports NPS next year.

2.)    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.

3.)    The legal challenge was launched in April 2009 and the case was heard in the High Court at a rolled-up hearing on the 23rd – 25th February 2010.

4.)    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.

5.)    If a third runway at Heathrow airport were to be built, the airport would become the largest single 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.

6.)    Aviation has a number of high-altitude impacts that increase its total warming effect on the climate. The Committee on Climate Change has recently suggested that aviation has a Global Warming Potential of around two, meaning that its total warming effect is twice that of its CO2 emissions alone.

7.)     In December 2009, the Committee on Climate Change published a report with recommendations of how the Government target to reduce aviation emissions to 2005 levels by 2050 could be met. The Committee recommended that aviation growth needs to be limited to around half of that planned in the White Paper, but warned that the target may need to be further tightened in the future.

8.)    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.

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.

Britain's leading architects are being invited to enter a competition to design an impenetrable fortress to be built on the land earmarked for a third runway at Heathrow.

The fortress will be constructed at the centre of the site in west London where airport operator BAA hopes to construct a £7bn runway and sixth terminal. An illustrious panel of celebrities and leading architects has been assembled to judge the entrants and select a winner. Construction will begin as soon as possible after the winning design is announced, unless the runway plans are dropped.

The plot of land where the stronghold will be built - in the village of Sipson to the north of the airport - was bought last year by Greenpeace, which then distributed ownership of it to people across the world. There are now over 60,000 beneficial owners of the runway land with more people signing up every day on the Greenpeace website, creating a legal headache for any government trying to push ahead with Heathrow expansion.

Now the one acre plot will see the construction of a fortress intended to defend the land from bulldozers and bailiffs. The structure will support owners of the land, local residents, seasoned campaigners and anybody else who wants to peacefully block the construction of a third runway. As well as leading architects, the panel of judges includes the comedian Alistair McGowan and the sculptor Rachel Whiteread CBE, who designed the official memorial to victims of the holocaust in central Vienna. Once the winning Heathrow design is chosen Greenpeace will raise the funds to build it. Previous Greenpeace appeals have raised seven-figure sums for specific projects.

The Open Ideas Architectural Competition will be launched at 11am today (Thursday) at St Pancras International champagne bar. Competition judges and leading figures from the architecture industry will join campaigners at the reception, where the competition brief will be revealed. The contest is open to architects, architectural students and architect-led mixed disciplinary teams. Given the nature of the brief, the judges are actively encouraging engineers, artists, landscape designers, sculptors and other professionals aligned with associated bodies to collaborate and submit designs. Greenpeace is also inviting the public to submit ideas via its website on how to defend the land in a ‘mass brainstorm' to come up with the best concepts.

Greenpeace Executive Director, John Sauven said:

"This is a competition to design what could become the next frontline in the fight against climate change. Whoever wins the next election they will come under enormous pressure from the all-powerful aviation industry to push ahead with a third runway. But if the bulldozers roll they'll face a fortress occupied by a massive movement of ordinary people who oppose Heathrow expansion."

He continued:

"We can raise the funds to build it, now we need the right design. We're looking for a structure that is immovable and allows local residents and seasoned environmental campaigners to peacefully block the diggers. It might be underground, it might be overground, it might be both, that's up to the panel of experienced judges from the worlds of architecture and activism to decide. This is a battle of the architects. The other side has a budget of billions but in the end only one structure will be left, and it won't be a new runway."

One of the judges is Professor Neil Thomas, the founder of renowned structural engineering consultancy Atelier One. He said:

"This has to be one of the most fascinating design briefs ever put out to competition. Architects are being asked to design a structure that will become iconic the moment it's finished. Then, very soon after completion, it could face the possible threat of bulldozers and bailiffs trying to tear it down. We think they'll fail. British design is in a very exciting period at the moment, so it's with some relish that we judges await the entrants."

Also on the judging panel is experienced environmental activist Oli Rodker, a veteran of the 90s road protests, when campaigners built ingenious structures to block the construction of roads and bypasses across the country and eventually forced the abandonment of a multi-billion pound government road building programme.

The deadline for submissions is April 23rd, with the winning design announced soon afterwards. An exhibition of the entrants will be held in a central London gallery at the beginning of June.

Another judge is leading architect Peter Clegg, Senior Partner at Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios. He said:

"As architects we know what can be achieved in terms of carbon reductions through the design and engineering of our buildings.  But we are painfully aware of the fact that there are bigger issues to do with major infrastructure projects where we also need to make a stand. Just as more and wider roads mean more cars, more runways will lead to more planes. We have to take a stand against freedom to fly anywhere, anytime and at any cost, and put an end to the absurd lifestyle changes that we are indulging in, that are increasing our carbon footprints and negating the savings we are managing to make in other areas."

Ends

For more contact Greenpeace on 0207 865 8255 / 07801 212967

Competition brief, autocad drawings and plans of the site can be downloaded at:

www.greenpeace.org.uk/heathrowcontest

Notes:

Design Aims

The winning design will offer -

• Ability for dozens of activists to occupy the Airplot for extended periods of time.
• Ability to withstand attempts by private security to evict activists.
• Ability to withstand attempts to seize the land using vehicles or heavy machinery.

Judging Criteria

• It must be as close to zero-carbon as possible - both in terms of its embodied energy and the energy it will use when "occupied".
• It must respect the natural environment.

• How applicants respond to site constraints, aims, basic needs, guiding design principles, requirements, constraints and considerations.
• Potential to aid resistance to eviction.
• Potential to communicate the cultural and moral significance of the campaign to stop the runway.
• Potential to inspire, galvanise support and communicate the gravity of the campaign to stop climate change.
• Potential to be a practical structure that whilst drawing upon the heritage of the site, would be truly sustainable in environmental, social and financial terms.