profchrisreed wrote:If anyone wants to read the full judgment it is here:
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ad ... /2118.html
Roughly speaking, the judge held that the CAA's decision was within the boundaries of what the CAA was allowed to consider and decide. The barrier was high because the judge decided that airspace decisions are technical matters and therefore the CAA has "a high margin of appreciation". Put simply, the judge couldn't ask whether the CAA got it right or wrong, just whether this was within the range of permissible decisions (which was a wide range in this case).
As with any Judicial review the scope is quite narrow and has to focus on whether the CAA carried out the (old) ACP process correctly. It could not look at the issue of whether the original ACP was valid and justified.
However a lot has changed since the ACP was first submitted, we have a new Sec of Transport, new climate change objectives, the Lord Kirkhope report, the CAA Strategy on airspace has been published etc. So I have written to Grant Shapps to suggest that he should look at whether it is right to allow this implementation which goes against the published CAA Strategy for lower airpsace and the results of a report sponsored by an APPG of which he was chair.
I suggest anyone who feels the same does likewise - a simple email should suffice if we can get enough who knows. .....