On 28/02/2020 16:50, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 28/02/2020 12:15, tim... wrote:

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.


I still say that a second runway at Gatwick is a better option.

--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]