Great Western Coffee Shop

BBC / Bristol Sound - Facebook feed


Should we be rejecting plans that lead to an increase in flying with all the issues of "how to make it Carbon Neutral" or accepting plans for expansion of the North Somerset Airport on the ground that if we don't, people will simply travel to Heathrow, Gatwick of Cardiff to fly ... and business and economy near and around those airports will grow at the expense of the Bristol area.

I suspect the rejection at local level will be over-turned (on appeal) at national level by the Planning Inspectorate.

As a follower of Bristol City and living in Weston, I am all too familiar with NSC and their bizarre voting

At least the extinction rebellion crowd in a weird fancy dress have finally left the town after days of prancing about

I found myself in an interesting situation the other week - I was at a WECA meeting in City Hall in Bristol arguing the case for suburban rail services, while outside there was a demonstration and march by people opposed to the expansion of Bristol Airport. The folks outside were, you might say, the usual suspects.

Inside, dozens of people politely took their turn to stand up and speak passionately and intelligently against the airport expansion. Some were close to tears as they voiced their fears for their grandchildren's future if nothing is done to stop climate change. Only one person spoke in favour of the airport's plans: Marvin Rees. And to be fair, his concern was that if other airports expand and Bristol doesn't then we haven't gained anything.

So what were the North Somerset councillors thinking? Perhaps they had reflected on the questions "If not now, when?" and "If not us, who?" and decided that the answers were "now" and "us". Is that bizarre?

I am pleased to see the airport expansion plans rejected.
Despite the claims about working towards reducing carbon emissions, flying is very carbon intensive, and likely to remain so. If we are serious climate change we need to fly less, not more.

I thought I'd read somewhere that the councillors (or one of them) hoped their decision to reject the application would encourage other councils to act similarly. If that were to happen, then although this and the next several would be won on appeal/called in by the SoS, it would be the beginning of a turning tide. However, I've read through all the press reports I read earlier and I can't find anyone saying this.  ::)

I don't know if anyone expressly said it, but it's reasonable to imagine that they may have thought it. Bristol, remember, was the first council to declare a climate emergency.

Interesting stat on Points West this evening (forgive me but this is from memory): just under half of all people did not fly last year, but 10% of people flew more than 10 times. Something over 80% of flights were non-business.

Airports, like roads, are thought by 'business leaders' (who they?) to be essential for economic growth, yet studies suggest that this is only true in seriously underdeveloped places. Maybe it's time to start listening to the experts again? Rather than expanding Bristol Airport, maybe we should start campaigning for Bristol-Birmingham High Speed Rail?

Does the rejection of the application strengthen or weaken the likelihood of some sort of airport rail link?
On the one hand, you could say that the rejection is a disincentive to the owners and/or local authorities to provide such a link to help cope with future growth in passenger numbers.
On the other hand, you could argue that the owners might just want to start talking seriously about this if they want to launch a future appeal.  After all, it was not so long ago since the (Canadian?) owners were making public noises about financing such an entity.

All very laudable thoughts that I’ll give due consideration to as I drink myself to sleep on my 10 hour flight home tonight. I do like the VA port though after dinner, so perhaps we have something in common...

You can offset it by avoiding the fillet steak

I will always respect anyone's opinion, but that just means if I take a long haul flight now, I get the chance to drive to London etc for the privelage, surely that doesn't help anything in the long run?

You are correct it was within one of the interviews shown on ITV West on Tuesday, I can't the exact quote but below is from a written statement which is very similar so would assume it was the same person:

.........Tarisha Finnegan-Clarke, co-ordinator of Bristol Airport Action Network (BAAN), one of the key campaigning organisations in this campaign said "This decision is likely to send shock-waves through the aviation industry in the UK as it may make it much more difficult for the many other airports who are currently applying to expand their passenger numbers before more difficult carbon targets are imposed on them by the Government".

TAKEN FROM: https://bristolgreenparty.org.uk/news

Yes, the figures on Points West were interesting, but I think the last figure you quote was actually people flying more than 4 times per year.
But Bristol is not a "Business" airport. I flew a great deal before I retired, the overwhelming majority of my flights were from Heathrow. I never flew from Bristol (on business) and twice collected some colleagues arriving from Germany there.
Bristol to Birmingham HS rail link ?? Yes, if 80% of the traffic wanted to go to Birmingham, but it doesn't - it wants to go to Barcelona, Basel, Bodrum, Bologna, etc, etc ....and usually just once a year. 
Which politician is going to be brave enough to stand up and tell the electorate that they are not allowed to have their annual holiday in Biarritz, Bilbao, etc, etc.............. You WILL go to to Bognor !!  Vote for me ......    :-\ :-\

If everyone who would have flown from an expanded  Bristol airport instead flies from London, and drives thereto, then nothing is gained.
The carbon emissions of the flight from London would be broadly similar to those of the flight from Bristol, and the carbon emissions of the drive would be in addition.

However the hope is that some people might decide not to fly. Perhaps taking the train instead.
The purpose of airport expansion is to accommodate more flights and more passengers. If we are serious about climate change, then we need LESS flights and FEWER passengers.
In my view, NO MORE airport capacity should be built. Even the present amount of air travel is a serious contributor to climate change, and to plan for any expansion is entirely contrary to concerns about climate change.

Lulsgate serves very few long haul destinations currently, with no published plans to increase scheduled long haul destinations. Nearly all the destinations beyond Europe are seasonal only. So unless you want the Caribbean, Middle East or Orlando between May and September you'll still need to travel to another airport for the rest of the world.

If you really must start at Lulsgste there's nothing stopping you flying to a European hub (Dublin, Paris CDG, Amsterdam Schipol, Frankfurt am Main) and taking your long haul flight from there.

Or take the train to Heathrow, Gatwick...

When criticised for Bristol's inaction on climate change since it declared an emergency (in... November 2018), Marvin Rees said something to the effect that 'when you have an emergency, you need a plan - you don't all just start running round in circles'. Which is true. But if your house is on fire, and is seems that the buckets of paraffin you are throwing at it are making the problem worse, maybe you should make the first element of your emerging plan 'stop throwing paraffin' and enact it without undue delay.

And so it is with building roads and expanding airports.

It was a bit of a non sequitur, but not a complete flight (sic) of fancy:

(https://assets.hs2.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/13084402/AW_HS2_Route_map_ALL_LINES-LANDSCAPE_2800x1262px_outlined-RGB-1400x631.png)
Image courtesy of HS2 Ltd (https://www.hs2.org.uk/what-is-hs2/)

...more details here: https://www.midlandsconnect.uk/midlands-engine-rail/midlands-rail-hub/

Thanks for finding that! I know I haven't been watching ITV West or reading Green Party news, so I presume TF-C must have been quoted somewhere else that I did read.

Was that before or after the council ordered a load of new diesel powered vehicles?


I would have certainly gone somewhere else to fly in search of vitamin D had I not been able to take a flight from Bristol to Tenerife to sit in the warm sunshine for 3 weeks. I probably wouldn't have gone for a few days' historical sojourn to Naples had I had to schlep all the way to Gatwick first rather than Ryanair from Exeter, so maybe the point is well made, but the genie is out of the bottle and it won't be easy to squash it back in. It will be a very brave politician who puts his or her neck on the block at a national level and says he or she will reduce the chances of Mr & Mrs (or Mr & Mr or Ms & Ms) Normal and their 2.4 children from enjoying a fortnight's self-catering on a costa somewhere, as opposed to in a Costa. George Osborne made it more expensive, or thought he had. Were it not for the tax, Ryanair would probably have paid for my first pizza to get me to Italy.

Bristol Airport is a business. Those Canadian teachers are no fools. They invested in a reasonably good airport and have spent a lot of money on getting more out of their investment. They are very proud of that in Ontario, my friend, a retired principal who follows events closely, tells me. But if you are going to have all those people flying through your airport, you want it to be as clean as possible, or at least as less dirty. So take what measures you can to cut energy use in the airport itself, as they have. The airport may yet go where WECA and the councils haven't been yet (no, not Kuala Lumpur) and prove the catalyst that finally kicks off light rail in the area. They are keen, and I'm sure they were the only business to dip hand to pocket to help pay for MetroBust.

Like others, I think this decision will not survive an appeal and a public inquiry. The council went against their planning officer's recommendation, and wrote a rebuttal of his advice. Any appeal will be based on law and policy at the time the application was made, so any new limits subsequently introduced will have no bearing on it. If NSDC's reasons did not follow national policy, they will be overturned. I hope they didn't turn down the application simply to appease the protesters outside the town hall, knowing full well that an appeal would succeed and secretly looking forward to the increased business rates and the chance to blame the Tories, because that is not an efficient use of council tax money. It isn't unheard of - look at Bristol City Council and the MacDonalds in Fishponds.

Stansted is in the same boat (poor metaphor) having been refused plans to expand what was described as "a car parking scheme with an adjacent runway" by one person at the meeting. On the other side of the coin, the good people of Sipson and other places scheduled for demolition for the third runway at Heathrow, may be wondering if there could be a further glimmer of hope for them, to add to the Prime Minister's comments earlier today, if Bristol does get to expand. For them, certainty can only really come with a bulldozer, but it could pause things for a while. Maybe aviation will decline rapidly and save them if they can hang on long enough.


I'm with His Majesty King George V on that one.

Just in case anyone missed it, here are Boris's comments.
From Evening Standard (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/heathrow-third-runway-boris-johnson-hs2-a4360161.html)

Boris's government seems to be bending over backwards to please the North at the moment. Will he give Birmingham or Manchester extra runways instead of Heathrow?

No-one's actually suggested reducing the number of flights from Bristol...

Not quite my point, and someone somewhere will surely have suggested a reduction to a number not unadjacent to zero, but I agree. The airport isn't up to the maximum number of passenger movements it actually has permission for yet. They clearly have ambitions to increase. Whether the application has been put in to make ready in the face of additional demand or to avoid new limits on CO₂ emissions is for them to answer.

Bristol wasn't able to maintain its direct flight to New York for more than a couple of years, and if it couldn't support that long haul destination on a scheduled basis then I can't see many others working for airlines either. The big expansion of air traffic originating in the UK has been low cost airlines over the last 25 years offering a multitude of predominately European destinations from regional airports  that before would have (in the south) required a trip to LHR or LGW.  Now some of this traffic has replaced charter airlines and package holidays, but much of it has encouraged more frequent short (2 or 3) day trips to Europe, which were much less common before, due to cost and inconvenience of airport (stag and hen weekends being just one example, a romantic weekend to a cultural capital being another ).

Is this increase in travel a good thing or not?  Well, as well as the environmental impacts, several cities are beginning to complain about being overwhelmed by tourists, so maybe not.  But how do you put the genie back in the bottle? It's clear that APD currently doesn't have enough of an impact to suppress demand, and so I would be in favour of a significant increase, although politically it will be unpopular, with bleating that hard working Joe and Jane's fortnight in the sun will cost more. But if it makes people think twice about several weekend flyaway breaks away each year and if nothing else arrests the increase in passenger traffic then it is probably a good thing, and I would happily pay it (though probably not to the level that broadgage would feel is appropriate).

However, just as important is that recent reductions in car emissions have stopped and been reversed, as efficiencies in internal combustion engines have been offset by us buying more SUV's. This has coincided with the freeze in fuel duty for several years, which in real terms is now cheaper than it has been for many years. It's about time that policy was reversed, and possibly more aggressive action taken to incentivise smaller car purchases, unless fully electric. (Apologies, that's getting a bit off topic though.)
 

Things may have moved on a bit since then. Airlines are increasingly offering point-to-point services rather than hub-and-spoke, with long and lean flights taking people from nearer where they live to closer to where they want to go. You can be fairly confident that this is where Bristol Airport sees its expansion coming from.

This is a major part of the reason why Airbus caught a cold with the A380 - it was perfectly suited to hub-to-hub operations, but went into operation just as they were going out of fashion

The Continental Airlines flights from New York were done using Boeing 757s, and ceased flying in November 2010. They were very popular and relatively full, but the business model depended on a larger number choosing business class travel than actually did. The 12 business class seats meant a loss of 28 seats compared to the all-economy class layout of the aircraft. Carry all economy passengers, and you would find weight increased, and fuel consumption with it. A few thousand dollars in fares on a $150 million machine doesn't sound a lot, but on such margins are profit and loss decided.

Bristol now has seasonal direct transatlantic flights courtesy of Tui, heading for Florida, Mexico, and Dominican Republic in 787-800 Dreamliners. They hold more people, and are a bit nippier than the 757. If it all goes well, other destinations with other airlines could be on the way after the appeal. Bristol is authorised for Code E aircraft, which also includes A330, despite the short runway. As Red Squirrel says, joining popular dots on maps is getting popular. It's a shame about the A380 - I have flown on them twice. They are more comfortable even in economy and my sister's nephew drives them for a living, but they were built to serve a market that started to disappear just as they entered service, thanks in part to the A350, built by the same company. They will make lovely personal aircraft for the mega rich, with room for the entire harem, plus everyone who might launch a coup in the absence of the ruler.

I don't disagree that long haul holiday destinations will continue from Bristol and possibly increase, but I'm not convinced that there's enough inward or outward demand for a regular scheduled service to a LH destination (although I note that Cardiff has Qatar). As you say, it's the Business Class traffic that makes or breaks a route.

Yes the A380 is very nice inside, both upstairs and down, although I prefer the A350 ambience and comfort (and the 787 too). The 787 seems to be at the sweet spot for long haul charter flights, and it's noticeable how tour operators have been keen to emphasise use of the aircraft.  Not sure what the charter ones are like at the front though compared with scheduled services - presumably something akin to Premium?

Qatar Airways are seen by some who folllow the industry as a bit of a vanity project for the rulers, and some of their route launches have begged the question as to whether they are bothered whether they make money or not.

Cardiff was arguably one of those (and of course came with support from the Welsh Govt), but in December (the latest month for which I have seen figures) 8,391 passengers used the route, up 30% on the same month a year earlier, and about a 75% load factor on the 787 employed on the route. Freight loadings have also apparently been good (often more money is made below the cabin floor than above it).

Who knows whether it's making money or not (yield management in the airline business is a science all on it's own) but after a shaky start it looks like the route is starting to do ok.

I hadn't realised that it is a daily service. It seems to be very well used from that figure - is that passengers both ways?

A quick look at Flightradar24  (https://www.flightradar24.com/airport/cwl) for cardiff shows 116 flights in the next 7 days, to 19 airports in 9 countries, with Amsterdam being the best served with 20 flights. For Bristol, the figure for the same 7 days is 610 flights to 76 airports in 26 countries. Amsterdam is again the busiest, presumably confirming its status as a popular hub*, but with 52 flights, over seven daily. Cardiff has a bit of catching up to do.

TC is right about freight - it pays well for the things that can't wait. Mail used to be a good earner for even budget carriers, but I'm not sure how it is faring in the digital age, where a gurning selfie before a famous beauty spot posted on Instagram seems to have usurped the traditional "Weather is here, wish you were beautiful" postcard, usually arriving just after your tan has faded.


I have yet to fly on an A350, but I agree with the thoughts on the A380 and 787. I have read that Airbus is slowing production of the A330 in favour of more economic, efficient, and environmentally less unsound models. It seems a very short time ago that the A330 was hailed as the economic, efficient and environmentally less unsound replacement for the 767, but things seem to move quickly these days. BA is phasing out its 747s, with a view to retiring the last by 2024. The A340 is also losing ground as airlines ditch 4-engined aircraft in favour of twin engined craft with ETOPS 180 rating or better. This is the Extended Twin Operations system, giving the maximum flying time an aircraft with two engines can fly away from a diversionary airport over sea or other places where you couldn't land a plane. The A350 has ETPS 370 ceritification, meaning that it can fly up to 6 hours 10 minutes from the nearest airport, which doesn't even rule out Antarctica. 3 and 4 engined planes are now superfluous, giving airlines that still operate them the cost of maintaining extra engines.

*The one time I tried this was a flight to Los Angeles from Bristol via Schiphol. It would have worked well, with only 45 minutes on Dutch soil, had someone not backed a lorry into the back of the DC10 we were supposed to be flying to the US on. I knew it was 7.30 when we eventually got to the hotel at the other end, but I didn't know which 7.30.)

It's 5 weekly currently and goes up to daily some time during the Summer season (which starts when the clocks change at the end of March in the airline world). That is total passengers in and outbound on the route. Works out to not far off 200 people on every flight.

The KLM routes at Cardiff and Bristol have been there for years, very successfully (Bristol of course has Easyjet on the route also)


Airbus have breathed new life into the A330 with the "neo" (new engine option), which is basically a re-engined, more fuel-efficient evolution. It's been quite successful. It doesn't have the legs of the A350, but perfectly good for flights up to about 10 hours, which is why Virgin (for example) have ordered both - the A330 neo's to replace their current A330 "ceo's" (current engine option).

I have seen chatter that an A330neo runs about $20m cheaper than an equivalent A350, so will be a good option if the ultimate performance of the A350 isn't needed.
 

I've done a few European flights via Schiphol but not for quite a number of years. On the last one, as I hurried from gate to gate I noticed lots of people clustered round TV screens. I remember the date, it was the eleventh of September...

The A330 also forms the basis of the Voyager* aircraft, used by the RAF for a variety of roles, including troop and VIP transport, refuelling, and mobile hospital. I was lucky enough to get a ride on one. The view from the window is more interesting than on most flights.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49540129112_9f0c3c4101_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49539412043_e7569a2ab9_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49540123817_2fcac5aca1_c.jpg)

(*The aircraft are comfortable, fast, and do not smell of badly serviced toilet. They should not be confused with the train of the same name.)

By chance, I've heard that the Ontario Teachers Pension Fund have just bought a big agribusiness conglomerate in the Goulburn [?sp] Valley of Australia. They own a lot of things in a lot of places and I don't think they're just for teachers nowadays!

This report states that the only realistic way to reduce carbon dioxide from aviation is to fly less.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59045851 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59045851)

No amount of tinkering at the edges by slightly more efficient air aircraft, or adding a little veg oil to the fuel will significantly reduce emissions.

Neither will counting on future developments reduce emissions in the here and now.

If flying is to be reduced, then we dont need more airport capacity at Bristol, Heathrow, or anywhere else.

It isn't going to be reduced. More people want to fly for business or leisure than are prepared to sellotape themselves to an aircraft, and get banged up for doing so. They just don't make as much noise. The argument against Bristol Airport should not be confused with the argument against flying per se, and won't be by the inspector. His remit is planning law and government policy, and if he thinks the airport has a good case against those yardsticks, he will find in their favour. That won't necessarily be the end of the matter, but he might think the argument of cutting emissions to travel to get on the plane pans out in real maths.

You may think adding a little veg oil is tinkering, but once the Ontario Teachers Pension and World Domination Fund starts producing entirely green aviation fuel from genetically modified crops grown on its Australian farms, there will be no argument against flying. Not that that will stop some people. Aviation has come a very long way in little over a century, and there is no reason to think the journey is finished. The picture in the report is, I think, taken from inside a Boeing 787. Competition between them and Airbus is reducing fuel consumption per passenger mile, and will continue to do so.

You will remember the days when we could buy indulgences by paying for a tree to be planted in memory of our week's self catering in Benidorm. Then we found out that the Scottish government was chopping them down to build wind farms, and Drax was importing even more to burn in its inferno. It never did more than make the few people who fell for the hype feel a little better. Expanding Bristol airport's operations might do some actual good if it stops travel to other airports to catch flights. And if flying does fall and they are stuck with an empty shiny new terminal, then we can say that there never was a need for it, and Ontario pensioners can take the hit.

(I know two retired teachers in Ontario. Retired teachers here would envy them.)

So we use agricultural land to allow people to fly rather than feeding people.  Not a good look if as predicted the known amount of climate change causes food shortages in some parts of the world. 

(https://fosbr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/128630-Figure-1-corrected.png?w=799&ssl=1)

Those green aeroplanes have a long way to go...

I very much doubt that vegetable derived oil will permit of green flying.

Firstly it needs to be produced without significant fossil fuel input. No diesel tractors used in cultivation, no natural gas derived fertilser used on the crop, no gas or coal used in the works that process the fuel.

And secondly, even if such fuel does become available, it should be used FIRSTLY for essential purposes such as emergency services vehicles, food production and transport, shipping, and existing public transport.

Only after such high priority applications have been greened  should passenger flights be considered.

Meanwhile in the here and now, the only way to reduce carbon dioxide from flying is to reduce flying. Tax aviation to the same extent as road fuel. Prohibit any advertising or promotion of air travel. End all grants and subsidies to airlines, airports and related enterprises.

Agreed.
Not only do trains come out best, but reducing the carbon emissions of trains is relatively simple. Electrification is a mature technology and available right now. No need for hugely expensive research into things not yet invented, simply get on and electrify major rail routes with existing and readily available technology. Use battery power as a second choice when OHLE is not suitable.
A greater proportion of electricity, whether for railway traction current or for more general uses, should be produced renewably. This also needs no expensive research. Simply get on and do it. Wind turbines and solar energy are mature technologies and available right now.

No sensible person expects large long haul electric passenger aircraft, it simply cant be done with available or reasonably foreseable technology.

It makes as much sense as the many fields around Devon growing maize to throw into anaerobic digesters to generate subsidies green electricity while we continue to import food that can be grow at home. Thankfully, being Canadian, they will probably repurpose an old coal mine or open cast iron pit, rather than use existing agricultural land. It is also possible that I let my imagination get the better of me, again.

In other news, Chancellor Rishi Sunak has just announce a cut in the aviation passenger duty levied on internal flights, and an extension of state help for regional airports.


Should soon pass private cars, I reckon. May even gave done so already, given the introduction of newer engines since 2018.

How is that green, or is he about to announce an even greater cut in train fares ... driving private to public (air) to public (rail)?

Doesn't seem likely, given the rate of growth of electric car (https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2020) sales.

IEA, Global electric car stock, 2010-2019, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-electric-car-stock-2010-2019

I don't think he said it was green, but if burning American wood pellets is green, it probably is green. I'm sure the explanation will be with us soon. It isn't with immediate effect anyway, so if you were thinking of flying to Glasgow to lobby the COP26 people, you will still have to pay the full current rate.

So much for greening the economy.

Subsidies for regional airports, will encourage more use thereof and increase carbon emissions.
Cut in air passenger duty, to reduce airline fares and encourage more flying.

Meanwhile petrol is at about the same cash price as it was ten years ago, and therefore much cheaper if compared to inflation or wages.

Train fares increase every year. It almost looks like a long term policy to encourage driving and flying and to discourage rail travel.

Be fair, broadgage. The spin doctors haven't had a go at this yet. They're not so green as they're cabbage looking.*

(* I don't understand it either. I'm from Lancashire.)

I think that "cabbage looking" is an old and potentially insulting term for a person with severe mental or physical  disability. As in "just sits or lies there like a cabbage" not capable of much thought or movement.

A London gangster saying was "to cabbage someone" meaning a beating or assault that was not fatal, but that caused serious disability.

At the end of the Budget did Rishi say wether the Budget was sponsored by Ryanair or Easyjet.

Either way, I expect there was furious lobbying, just like there has been with the SWR planned cuts.

Except that the aviation industry lobbying has worked and produced tax cuts and public funding for airports.

The passenger lobbying regarding Waterloo to Bristol services, MIGHT succeed, but dont count on it.

Breaking news, Bristol airport expansion approved, as announced on today's evening news.

More flights, more passengers, more pollution, more global warming. The climate emergency is now very last year.

Appalling news. Even I would not ban air travel, but to actively increase capacity is a backwards step.

I didn't expect that!

It occurred to me that this will also have big implications on getting these increased numbers of passengers to and from the airport.  How will this be addressed?

According to the TV news report there will be "loads of buses swooping in and out" so that is all right then.

I expect some PV modules and a few electric car charging points, for greenwashing.

Unsurprisingly, I don't share your sense of dismay, and see it as a positive step forward. Not just for Bristol, but for the overall reduction in traffic criss-crossing the country in search of a flight.

I haven't been able to find the inspector's decision yet, to see on what basis he came to his conclusion. There is already talk of legal action by the council and anti-aviation group. You may recall that some time ago, I said:


I'll stick my neck out, not very far, and say that any legal action will be futile unless the inspector is found to have had a vested interest, which won't happen. There is a six-week window in which to apply for a judicial review. I think the action group is more likely than North Somerset DC to seek judicial review, unless the council can be persuaded to risk throwing good money after bad. This appeal will have cost them a lot of their taxpayers' money, and they may yet have to pay the airport's costs too. A JR needn't cost them more than a teacher's salary for a year, unless they try to turn it into a re-run of the flawed arguments they used to refuse permission. Bristol Airport Action Network's representative has said the group will be speaking to a legal team about the decision. I am sure they will find one willing to take on the work, for a consideration.

On the positive side, I hope that the airport makes good on any undertakings it made regarding transport to the airport. I am sure it will - before the pandemic struck, the majority of buses using the South Bristol Link Road were heading to or from the airport. They seem to have abandoned it in favour of a return to the route through Bedminster. I don't know if that is permanent, but the airport tends towards the pragmatic, and may well return to running both versions of the route as traffic picks up. That is assuming the guided bit and Cumberland Road remain fit for use by buses. I don't like the early signs, though. Better bus infrastructure is mentioned in the report from ITV (https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2022-02-02/bristol-airport-will-be-allowed-to-expand-after-planning-appeal), but nothing about rail.

This BBC report  (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-60234355)includes a helpful link (for once) to the inspectors' report (https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=46076498).

The conclusion is brief in the extreme:

But in among a lot of matching pairs of hands, this looks as crucial as any:

(Yes, the whole report is that long.)

I can not agree that more airport capacity is any way good for the environment, or even neutral as is stated in the report.

The purpose of increased capacity is to handle more flights so as to enable more people to fly. Airlines are virtually 100% fossil fuel powered and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

Transport to/from the enlarged airport is better by bus than by car, but that is ignoring the underlying problem of the amount of  fuel used by the aircraft.

A short drive to Bristol airport will use less road fuel than a longer drive to a London airport, but again that is ignoring the underlying problem of the amount of fuel used by the aircraft. And of course the shorter drive to Bristol will encourage MORE flying in total.

And to those who argue that future aircraft will use either a lot less fuel or something other than fossil fuel, I would say "Fine, simply prohibit ALL increased airport capacity, and reverse ALL tax breaks until this is achieved"

I'm entirely unsurprised by this decision.

Unlike some, I'm not sanguine about the reduction in traffic crossing the country to reach an airport. Yes, that might happen, but evidence from all forms of transport is that increasing capacity increases usage, for all modes from foot to space travel.

There is also an interesting contrast between relatively green railways, and very ungreen airlines.

On "the railway" the response to the pandemic is one of cutting train lengths and numbers of trains on the grounds that fewer people are travelling. Reversing these cutbacks will no doubt be a slow and expensive process. Any increase  in passenger numbers will be met by the old mantra of "there is no spare rolling stock to cater for holidays and special events"

Numbers flying have also reduced, but the response is the exact opposite, increase airport capacity in order to attract more custom "build it and they will come"

Aren’t we busy building East West Rail, a slightly curtailed HS2 and finishing off Crossrail, not to mention several new railway stations and have just reopened two old routes at Okehampton and Cross Keys to Newport?

Yes we are, and such schemes are commendable, but meanwhile on GWR fewer trains and shorter trains are the norm, with little urgency in doing anything about this because "passenger numbers are down and the present service is generally adequate"

And on SWR, the class 455s are being withdrawn before the replacements are available, again due to "falling passenger numbers"

And cross country are withdrawing HSTs and reducing capacity for similar reasons.

New services via Okehampton are of no help to the passenger standing from Paddington to Taunton, or from Waterloo to Basingstoke, or on many cross country services.

We all know that "meanwhile" GWR's service has fewer services and some shorter trains that the norm, for two major reasons. So I think that quote must be an example of broadgage's law - by analogy with Hofstadter's law, of course:

"GWR normally run fewer and shorter trains than they normally run".

AIUI it’s the 2-car Class 456s that have been withdrawn, along with a few 455s, but the majority are staying for the time being.

I don’t know enough about passengers loadings on the SWR inner suburban routes (and I suspect you don’t either) to know whether there is a significant capacity crisis as a result, but on the face of it, it’s a very commuter biased route and I suspect 10-car trains are well in excess of what’s currently needed.  At off-peak times they always were anyway.

Depending on how long it takes the Class 701 issues to be resolved (some have suggested the class number indicates the number of outstanding faults on them), perhaps SWR will pay dearly for being told by the DfT to let go of the units that’ve left the franchise. 

Or they’ll time it well and 701s will come on stream at just the right time to deal with an increase in passenger numbers.

I agree with you that the current situation with CrossCountry is very unsatisfactory, particularly at weekends.

As for Paddington to Taunton I note the list of short forms has dropped away almost completely over the last few days.  I wonder if that was at least partly linked to my theories of depot staff isolations during the worst of the omricon case numbers?

Whether we like it or not, the reality is that Bristol is the main airport for the South West of England, and is likely to be so for a long time to come.

People want and need to fly for business and personal reasons. Yes, we shouldn't be flying it willy-nilly or where a good rail alternative exists, but should we deny air travel to those who happen to be located in Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Exeter because we disapprove of it.

Surely the way to make the best of the situation would be to build a decent heavy-rail connection into the airport, particularly one that supports direct services to Exeter and beyond? If the public sector played its part to clear the regulatory issues and perhaps electrified the mainline, I'm sure some kind of creative financier could think up a way to fund it through some kind of long-term bond offering.    

A lot of people struggled with that concept, including North Somerset Council. I didn't, and neither did the inspector and his colleagues. All their years of learning have not been wasted. This decision, and the approved expansions of Stansted and Luton, should bring a slight measure of relief to anyone fighting the expansion of Heathrow.


To quote my friend the inspector, himself quoting someone on the airport team:



I'm with you on the first point, and will take the bus when I go there next month.  A short drive from Bristol would use a lot less fuel than the schlep to Gatwick and back, passing Bristol airport on the way home. Multiplied by 50 or so cars, it is not insignificant. Nor is the saving in aircraft fuel in flying the extra miles, then stacking over Ockham. I have spent half an hour on a Boeing 747 going in slowly descending circles before finally heading out to the Thames estuary to join the queue on finals to land at Heathrow. Only once have I circled close to Bristol airport because of traffic, and I was driving. It wasn't a 747. On the encouragement of more flying overall, I refer you to the quote by my learned friend above. He has studied the topic, and knows more than you or I do.


Given that aviation counts for under 2% of the UK's output of greenhouse gases, you would achieve far more by charging VAT at 20% on gas until all homes have electric heat pumps, stopping all road building and removing the freeze on petrol and diesel duty until all cars are electric, charging proper duty on diesel used for transport until all trains and buses are powered by clean electricity, and good luck at the next election. Growing crops or using energy to make aviation fuel is just posturing, at least until we have abundant clean energy to do it with. Once our nuclear fleet is up to speed, maybe that would be a good use for surplus renewable energy as it isn't time constrained in the way the grid is. Aircraft will use less fuel per passenger mile - the progression has been steadily downwards since the Wright Brothers' first flight, but I accept that aviation, and possibly shipping, will be the last to abandon fossil fuels. When they do, there will still be campaigns against flying.


Exactly. Which is not to knock Exeter Airport - I flew to Naples once, and very good it was too - but Bristol's catchment area makes it the horse to back for trips abroad from the region. It's 180 miles from Penzance, to put the area into perspective. It's 110 miles from Plymouth, but there's a bus from there to Bristol Airport. I fully approve of your campaign to upgrade the railway from Cornwall.

Without the 456s the 455s are down to 8 cars. In the peaks I always get someone sitting next to me and there's a few standing in the vestibules. As much as I hate having an hourly service, I have to admit I don't often see overcrowding. When I do, I have to assume an earlier train has been cancelled.

Bristol Airport Ltd has asked for a full award of their costs in relation to the appeal. Reading the  full application (https://gat04-live-1517c8a4486c41609369c68f30c8-aa81074.divio-media.org/filer_public/67/9a/679af087-cb31-46e2-856e-126133c93ff7/121-0_bristol_airport_inquiry_-__bal_costs_application.pdf) won't make for easy reading for councillors. If I were a councillor, I would be starting work on planning cuts to pay the bill.

If Bristol airport get their way and council taxpayers DO have to pay then that in my view is wrong.

The message sent out is that "there is no point in opposing airport expansion, because any decision made by the local authority  can be overuled and said local authority then have to pay the costs"

Democracy ? not applicable to airport expansion, vote how you want, but airport expansion will go ahead anyway.
Climate emergency ? not applicable because more flying is actually OK.

It is not surprising that calls for what is politely called "direct action" are growing. The people of Bristol voted for a local authority that opposed airport expansion, they did the "right thing" by voting rather than by use of violence. And look how that ended.

And of course in London, an apparently watertight undertaking that there would be no third runway at Heathrow turned out to actually mean "well a third runway is OK in fact"

TUI are currently flying out of Exeter to/from other European destinations 6 days a week (nothing on Wednesdays) and by May there will be services 7 days a week. I assume this is a commercial decision and that a significant proportion of their custom originates from west of Exeter. In terms of environmental damage is it better for these people to reduce their road trips by around 130 miles and then hop on a plane which is very unlikely to have to join a queue for take-off or landing? Ideally, of course, Exeter Airport would be rail connected but I think we all know that is not going to happen.

If ALL of the passengers flying from Bristol or Exeter airports were so doing instead of driving to a London airport, then yes there would be a saving in road fuel. So no problem in reducing capacity at Heathrow then !

Hardly likely is it, indeed expansion at Heathrow is being called for in ADDITION to the expansion at Bristol.

The real purpose of expanding capacity at Bristol, Heathrow, and at other airports is to enable MORE flights in total, in order that MORE people can fly MORE conveniently, to MORE destinations.

Any savings in road fuel resulting from some passengers driving to a local airport instead of driving to a more distant airport will be completely swamped by an overall total increase in flying.

If we are serious about the climate emergency we need to fly a lot less, and not be adding capacity for more flights.

I'm not quite sure why, and this could be a wild stab in the dark, but I'm starting to think you're not too keen on aviation, as well as IETs?

Thank you for the heads up - it will be handier for me than Bristol. It will indeed save fuel all round for Exeter to cater to a lot more of the population of Devon and Cornwall. The list of destinations is extremely limited in comparison to Bristol, and the prices are a lot more than easyJet, but hopefully this is just the first step towards a much bigger range of flights out of Exeter. As an aside, airlines don't like using fuel on the ground either. Sir Branson himself was at one point proposing that aircraft are tugged to their place in the queue by electric tugs, using only the APU until it is almost time for them to go. I can see practical problems there, such as what happens if an engine refuses to start, but pilots often taxi with only one engine running and start the other on the way to the holding point, and shut one down after landing before heading for the stand. Starting a modern engine is fast and simple - I saw a small boy almost start an Airbus engine at an open day before a pilot rushed forward to intervene.

My one trip out of Exeter was a joy because of the lack of other traffic. The pilot may have been given "Clear for take-off" before reaching the runway, rather than two minutes after lining up behind a landing big jet.


Whilst I am sure that your views will be held by anyone against aviation, the main message is one that was loud and clear before north somerset DC refused planning permission. Local authorities are there to make local decisions, but are bound by law and by a national planning framework as well as their own local policies. If they don't abide by those, their decisions will be overturned, and if the other party is put to unnecessary expense because they acted perversely in reaching their decision, they are entitled to recover their costs. Had it been a matter of interpretation of policy, it would have been different, but the airport's case is that this is much more profound. The inspector will sort it all out, I'm sure.

Did the people of Bristol vote for a council that opposes airport expansion? Certainly, the 24 green councillors could be assumed to tick that box, but I don't know the views of the other 66% of the members of the council. It was not their decision to make anyway, but the current transport plan has the provision of improved public transport to the airport as a priority, so they aren't getting in the way. The people of Bristol voted for a council wanting to reintroduce trams three times, but ended up with a few bus lanes and a special expressway for the airport instead.

As for Heathrow, we can agree that no undertaking to not build a third runway can ever be watertight or cast iron, although more regional capacity will water down the case for it. Expansion to the north of Heathrow was first cancelled in December 1953, and it has been on and off ever since. The only final result possible is that it is built. Whether or not that happens will be a matter for my grandchildren to discuss in all likelihood.

You are correct.
I am opposed to any growth in or expansion of aviation due primarily to the fuel consumed, indeed I would like to see a reduction. The fuel used per mile, per passenger, is broadly similar to that used in driving. No great accuracy may be claimed in this as both cars and aircraft vary in fuel use and in load factor.
The problem is that the speed of air transport encourages greater use. Few people would drive a thousand miles for a short break, but flying that distance is routine.
I am not alone in such views, there is growing concern about climate change.

I dislike IETs for the reasons given elsewhere, and again I am not alone in such views. Some people like them, but most consider them a backward step in terms of comfort, facilities, and train length.

You really must stop taking the bait every time, Broadgage!  :D

You got me there, broadgage. I didn't have enough annual leave to drive home from Alaska or Tokyo. The Falklands may have proven tricky too. They weren't really short breaks though, and I did some of the journeys by sea.

Yup

Those barstewards running 9 and 10 car trains to replace the longer HSTs (if you include some fresh air at each end...)

I suspect the concern starts at extreme cases, such as flights for a day in Lapland to meet Santa and his reindeer.  Not sure if they've done those from Bristol, but certainly from a number of other regional airports.

Powered by electricity for part of the way, produced by wind (if it's windy) or sun (if it's sunny), or carbon-free nuclear and gas most of the time. Still cleaner than filthy diesel. If National Rail signed up to a 100% renewable electricity tariff like London Underground did, the amount of fossil fuels used in making electricity throughout the land would be cut dramatically overnight.  If one is going to embrace the fight against climate change and exhort others to do so, one must accept with good grace whatever slight discomfort the fight may cause along the way.

Never quite understood these renewable tariffs. At any point in time there's a certain amount of demand on the network, and similarly available supply. some of which will be green but some won't. How that's divvied up feels irrelevant. If coal is needed for the last 3% at a particular point in time , NR (nor indeed anyone else) can't say, "make sure we don't get any of that nasty coal generated electricity to power our trains" - it's just one big pot.   

No not really.  The only way it would drop overnight is if more renewable generation is brought on stream. 

Signing up to  renewable tariff means that your supplier has to find that amount of renewable electricity to buy.  That creates demand for renewable generation and drives new renewable generating capacity. 

The electrons moving in the wires don't know how they are sourced so yes it will be a mixture, and availability at a particular time will mean wind and solar will need to be balanced with other sources unless there is a large amount of battery storage. Tidal would make a real difference here as it is predictable and can be balanced out by having generation in different locations around the coast. 

The new trains are indeed at least a bit green, and undeniably better than flying is, bi-mode power is far preferable to 100% diesel.
I am not convinced however that new trains HAVE to be worse than old ones in terms of comfort and facilities, If the old trains had padded seats, then why cant the new ones ? If the old trains had buffets, then why is providing this facility so hard or unreasonably expensive on new ones ?
And as for train length, I appreciate that the new trains are INTENDED to be longer, but in practice 5 car operation is frequently reported, and has been since they were introduced.

Why should we "accept with good grace" that new trains are worse than old ones.

Agree, any one customer signing up to a renewable tariff DOES NOT magically alter the mix of generation used to supply the national grid. It is simply an accounting exercise, that I, and others have compared to the Church practice of selling indulgences whereby sins can be for forgiven for a sum of money.

If the electricity actually comes exclusively from green sources, then why has it gone up so much ? Wind and sunlight have not increased in price as has natural gas.

The only way to make electricity greener is to build more wind turbines, and install more solar panels, and other renewables. NOT by trading or offsetting.

For pity's sake, don't tell everybody! The few power companies that are left rely on some people thinking their supply wired up to a wind turbine directly, and don't ask what happens when it isn't windy.


That, or buy REGOs on the open market across Europe and even beyond. It costs under £2 to buy enough to greenwash the supply to the average British home for a year. Broadgage refers to these as "indulgences", and I think he has hit that nail squarely on the head.

The again delayed reopening of Tavistock railway station and the line thereto was reported on local TV news yesterday, 13/02/2022.  The latest delay was contrasted to the expansion of Bristol airport.

It was suggested that airport expansion could be "pushed through" but that railway re-opening was "delayed as long as possible" Certainly seems an interesting view of actual transport priorities.

Portishead was also compared to the airport expansion yesterday, although not by our friend RS, who is above this bad-mouthing of the opposition as a way of scoring cheap points. Everything that takes a long time will henceforth be compared to the breakneck speed with which the expansion of Bristol Airport was pushed through the planning system.

As it happens, the airport's application was not "pushed through" at breakneck speed, but in fact took longer than it should have done because of what has now been shown as north somerset DC's failed attempt to subvert the planning rules. The airport also had finance sorted prior to submitting the application, something which remains elusive in the Tavistock case. I am sure it is not responsible for the glacial pace of projects that rely on what little public money is left. I am also sure that their planning team would be delighted to share some of their expertise with neighbouring local authorities, if asked.

For the record, I share the frustration of waiting for things to happen on small rail projects.

The big difference is that Bristol Airport is being pushed by a private company with finance available and all of the detailed planning BCRs etc were done behind closed doors.

With railways the funding comes from HMG and all the planning is done in public with far more opportunities for query and delay.  I suspect that in full GWR days Portishead would have been far faster.

I suppose a private project doesn't need to fiddle the BCRs like projects such as MetroBust had to do to get the money. If it flops, it flops, and in this case a lot of Canadian pensioners will not get quite the rise they were expecting next year. On the other hand, I am sure I am not alone in paying the closest possible attention when I am spending my own money rather than that belonging to a constituency that could vote me out of power next year. Any pension fund, home or abroad, would be just as careful.

I agree that they will be as careful, but they will not publicise the BCR and will not show their plans until it has passed internal tests such as the BCR.

And if those BCR figures don't add up to a sound investment, they wouldn't go ahead with the scheme.

and we will never know that it was proposed.

Exactly.

I have been on holiday, and am still catching up. The long awaited application for Judicial Review is in. Details appear on the solicitor Leigh Day (https://www.leighday.co.uk/latest-updates/news/2022-news/judge-gives-permission-for-high-court-challenge-to-go-ahead-for-bristol-airport-expansion/)'s website.

Last night I had the joy of waiting for relatives arriving at BRS on return from their holiday.

Their flight was a hour late but that wasn't a problem as I was able to track it. I knew long before I set off to the airport that they were going to be delayed leaving Marrakech as the plane allocated to their flight (G-TUMM TUI B737 Max 8 for those who like to know such things) was delayed on it's inbound flight.

I also factored in additional waiting time for them to clear security after landing. Not wishing to be bankrupted I parked up in a layby on the A38 near the airport rather than be held to ransom by the extortionate car park charges. I tracked the plane using Flightradar so only had to wait for their call to say they'd cleared security.

So, their flight taxied to a stand at 0025. What time did they get out of Arrivals? 0215!!! Security was breezed through. They then waited over an HOUR AND A HALF for their luggage. That was 50% of they're flight time.

The fault lay entirely with Swissport, the baggage handlers for their flight. DHL handled flights were breezing through baggage reclaim.

I'm really glad I don't fly anywhere. I'll stick with trains thanks.

What sort of refund do you get under such circumstances?

In-airport delays? Likely nothing. Compensation for delayed baggage only usually kicks in if it fails to make it to the airport. It would probably need to be delayed on ground at the 'home' airport for over a day before an airline would consider compensation. For lost, damaged, severely delayed baggage it's probably best to claim on your travel insurance. Whilst the airline is liable, they are unlikely to be quick or generous with compensation. You'll be caught between your airline and them arguing the toss with the airport and its baggage handling contractor.

For a near two hour delay claiming baggage? Goodwill gesture at best if you complain to the airport/handling company. More likely just a mealy mouthed apology.

I'll bet half of the baggage crew had finished at midnight. One reason I avoid taking hold luggage, but that isn't always possible. I think you may be right about compensation - hanging about at the airport for luggage that is there but maddeningly out of reach seems to be the only contingency not mentioned in all the guidance I have read, but worth asking.

I flew home on a 737 MAX 8 (G-TUMS) in May. I know it had a chequered start to say the least, but I liked it. It seemed quick on the uptake, quiet, more leg room, and bigger windows than its older brother. Only an extra inch, but it was a remarkable view, letting me recognise places in Turkey and Italy I had been. Reminded me a bit of the 787 Dreamliner, especially with the funky nascelle chevrons.

Not an unusual for Bristol sadly and this sort of delay for luggage was happening at times even before covid. Friends who’ve flown via Bristol twice this year have had two hours plus waits for baggage on both occasions.

This, and problems at the other end i.e. getting through security, means we’re avoiding using Bristol airport until they sort themselves out. Been using Bournemouth instead these past couple of years. Great little airport.

"The railway" clearly have a lot to learn from the airline and airport industries, WRT to luggage in particular.

What we need is some form of checked luggage facility on trains, preferably involving computers and automated handling systems.

Lunch in London, dinner in Plymouth, luggage at Castle Cary.

Or the other way round.
Passengers would carry / drag their holiday suitcases on to the plane and then force them into racks at each end and, possibly, the middle.

I flew from Bristol on the afternoon of the Queens funeral.At the top of the escalator after swiping boarding passes we were herded..not shepherded... into 7 lines of alternating direction. I estimated each line to be 100 yards long from end to end, so in effect over half a mile long. There were 4 out of 10 security checkpoints operating.
I scanned my boarding pass at 1357 and only just made my Newcastle flight at 1640 that was as far from security as possible. At 68 and a few medical conditions, running is not my forte.
On my return the following Friday, I noticed that the whole of the frontage of the airport was tented in and given over to Silver zone buses. The signage for other buses was virtually non existent, and eventually I found my way down 3 flights of steps and 3 ramps to the 'bus station' in front of the multi storey carpark.

Whilst waiting for a Falcon into Bristol (NB 3 pounds single if you show your bus pass....undercuts First A1 by 5 pounds and drops you at Anchor Road)I witnessed an elderly couple get off a bus laden with suitcases..who asked me the terminal was. When I replied "up there", they were horrified and had to phone for a taxi to take them there, as there was no way they could have got there, even sans luggage.
I raised all these points with a complaint to Customer Services and was promised a reply within 7 , then 15 days. After sending 28 emails, one a day for the next 28 days each receiving a new case number, I received a very grudging apology.
I also raised these issues with their partner ICTS, responsibe for security at the airport, but have not yet received a reply.
At 28 pounds for a hour long one way flight, the plane and service were fine, as was the Metro on arrival in Newcastle
Even at 170 pounds return using a railcard with XC , a 6hr journey with 2 changes, I might even consider it after  the horrendous pre-flight experience, which seems to be the norm, rather than the exception these days.

SWMBO did that at the end of May when she was waiting for me to come in from Dublin

The parking ticket turned up a few days later - she had not spotted the red lines

I have recently returned from a happy couple of weeks in the sunshine, watching TV reports of serious rain and flooding back home, then sitting in some pleasant beachside restaurant with the local special and a glass or two to numb my sorrow for those left at home. The journey began with my neighbour dropping us at the Falcon bus stop in Cullompton for the ride to Bristol Airport. We arrived early to give plenty of time for the horrors of security. Within 5 minutes of walking through the front door, we were airside and running the gauntlet of perfume sellers in duty free. We took off exactly on time for a very pleasant flight and a quite remarkable landing in Funchal, done with aplomb using a technique I was taught as an emergency measure. Coming home was similarly punctual, even with a tail wind to help us on our way. We were out of the airport and on the Falcon two hours ahead of our planned schedule, and back to our freezing home in excellent time. I saved a lot of money on gas, electricity and petrol while away and am planning next year's sojourn already with a month as the target. The hike to the departure gate aside, I found Bristol Airport to be in superb form.

Mr Justice Lane is obviously home from his winter hols too, and has handed down his Judgment in Bristol Airport Action Network Co-ordinating Committee (acting through Stephen Clarke), Claimant, and Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Defendant (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/171.html). Unsurprisingly, he found for the Secretary of State. Remember that this case was not a retesting of the case for expansion of the airport, but a judicial review of the process used and implemented by the panel of inspectors at the Public Inquiry into the council's decision to refuse permission for the expansion. BAAN had lodged the case citing six grounds of challenge to the decision by the inspectors, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Levelling Housing and Communities. All of the grounds were dismissed by the judge, who held, in short, that they had done a perfectly good job on the review, and had come to conclusions that were entirely reasonable.

The claimant's lawyer has said he may advise an appeal. I would if I were him - you don't often get the chance to argue a case you know to be hopeless in the Court of Appeal, and there's good money in it.

You may recall my earlier utterances:

and


I believe I was right on all counts. I will again stick my neck out, again with no fear of it being harmed, and say that if an appeal is lodged and is accepted for hearing in the Court of Appeal, it will fail, and it won't take as long to throw it out as the judicial review took. The appellant would have to show that the Honourable Mr Justice Lane, otherwise Sir Peter Richard Lane, erred in law or was conned. Both options appear to be vanishingly unlikely. I don't know if Mr Justice Lane is related to the late and famous (or infamous) Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, but he knows his stuff.