A5 upgrade won't jeopardise net zero goals, court told
Authorising the £1.2bn A5 road upgrade will not jeopardise Northern Ireland's net zero climate change goals, government lawyers have told the High Court.Counsel representing the Department for Infrastructure rejected claims it acted irrationally by approving the dual carriageway scheme without a proper action plan to ensure carbon emission targets are met.The 53-mile project on the main corridor between Londonderry and Aughnacloy in County Tyrone was given the go-ahead by Stormont ministers in October last year.With more than 50 deaths recorded on the A5 since 2006, campaigners have been pressing for the improvements to be carried out.
The upgrade, which forms part of a proposed key cross-border business route linking Dublin and the north west, has already been held up by previous legal actions.A group of local residents, landowners and farmers are now mounting a fresh challenge against the decision to begin construction work.The umbrella group, known as the Alternative A5 Alliance, contend it will breach legislative targets set out in the Climate Change (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.Part of the case centres on Planning Appeals Commission recommendations against proceeding with the scheme unless the department was satisfied it would not undermine those goals.
'Thorough climate analysis'
No reasonable authority could have concluded there was enough information to demonstrate the targets would still be met if the scheme was approved, according to the Alliance's case.But responding for the department, Paul McLaughlin, KC, confirmed that none of the allegations were accepted."The obligation on the department was to act consistently with the climate targets," he said."In this case, the department did satisfy itself through thorough analysis that the authorisation of this project was consistent with the achievement of those targets."Mr McLaughlin added: "At the very least, the authorisation of the scheme would not prejudice achievement of those targets."The result is that the department did not act irrationally, it had ample information through which to satisfy itself and it therefore did not act in breach of (the act)."The hearing continues.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on child poverty: free school meals are a help, but not a panacea
It was Ellen Wilkinson, education minister in the Attlee government, who announced in 1946 that free school dinners would be introduced, along with free school milk, at the same time as child benefit. No doubt Rachel Reeves, who has a picture of Wilkinson on the wall of her office, is aware of this – and also that the Treasury subsequently decided the policy was unaffordable. The meals were subsidised instead. Despite these initial charges, and later price rises, poorer children did gain, and keep, an entitlement to free school meals. The announcement last week that this is being extended in England to all those whose parents or carers claim universal credit – rather than restricted to families with incomes lower than £7,400 – should be welcomed by all objectors to child poverty. Being assured of a hot lunch in the middle of the school day makes pupils' lives better. Children cannot be expected to learn when they do not have enough to eat. This might sound obvious, but is easily forgotten. Scotland and Northern Ireland already have more generous rules in place. Ministers clearly hope that this will be a popular policy, as they prepare for this week's spending review and the reaction to it. Hunger in schools is disturbingly widespread and the enthusiastic reception to Marcus Rashford's campaign on school food showed that this is a cause the public warms to. Long before last year's election, breakfast clubs were a flagship Labour policy. Now they are part of Bridget Phillipson's schools bill. But as with breakfast clubs, which some schools have said that they cannot deliver on the budget provided, good intentions must not mask inadequate finances. Already, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has challenged the government's claim that 100,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. It said this can only be expected over the long term. And some children already entitled to free meals do not receive them – prompting calls for auto-enrolment. Another challenge concerns food quality, which has been eroded by a series of below-inflation funding increases. Free lunches are already offered to all pupils up to the age of seven. But a recently announced 3p rise in the subsidy towards these (from £2.58 to £2.61 per meal), was rightly criticised for forcing school leaders to either reduce their lunch offer, or make cuts elsewhere. The average actual cost of a school lunch is £3.16. Twenty years after the Channel 4 television series Jamie's School Dinners turned kitchens' reliance on junk food into a national issue, it is depressing that resources remain so meagre. Childhood obesity and poor dental health are serious problems, particularly in poorer parts of the country where treatment is harder to access. Ms Phillipson and her colleagues should be more ambitious about quality as well as quantity. Improvements could contribute to children's overall wellbeing, as well as nutrition. Meals are social events, not just refuelling stops. But step back from the table and the bigger picture comes into view. Child poverty, of which poor diets are a symptom, cannot be tackled by schools alone. Reducing it means raising family incomes through the benefits system – as well as trying to boost wage growth. Earlier this year, some Labour MPs warned that school food risked becoming a sop. That danger has not gone away. The latest announcement on free lunches is good news so long as it does not distract from efforts to remove the two-child benefit cap, or weaken the wider campaign against child poverty.
BBC News
9 hours ago
- BBC News
Botley West campaigners join national walk against solar farms
Campaigners against plans to build one of Europe's largest solar farms have joined a nationwide community walk to protest against the potential impact of the West Solar Farm could cover about 1,000 hectares (2,471 acres) of countryside at three sites in west Oxfordshire if Photo Vault Development Partners (PVDP) say large-scale solar energy is crucial to meet the UK's climate targets, with the site capable of producing enough to power the equivalent of 330,000 those opposed to the scheme say the plans are "not necessary" and not "in the interests of the local community". Rosemary Lewis, who is part of the Stop Botley West campaign, told the BBC during the walk that solar energy "isn't the best solution for this country"."It [the proposal] makes me feel very sad - not just for our generation, but for future generations because solar [power] has almost begun to have its day," she added that the proposal had "not really been thought out carefully enough" by PVDP, as within the next 40 years solar power would be "obsolete technology". A fellow campaigner on the walk said: "Most of the land that those panels will be covering is good agricultural land, and its just not right - we need solar panels on roofs of new houses, not on the fields.""There's a right place for these sorts of things, and a right size - and this [proposal] just isn't it," another £800m farm would see panels installed in countryside north of Woodstock, west of Kidlington and west of been designated as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, the proposals are currently being evaluated by the director Mark Owen-Lloyd previously told the BBC: "We are confident this project will make a significant contribution towards the UK's ambitious solar generation targets."Addressing concerns around the site's scale and visibility, Mr Owen-Lloyd previously said the solar farm would be hidden in fields and behind hedges, and that people "would not notice it is there". You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Telegraph
9 hours ago
- Telegraph
Climate change quango to spend £8m on latest report
The Government's official climate change adviser is to spend £8.2m on a report assessing the risks of global warming to the UK – roughly five times the cost of the previous study. The Climate Change Committee said the significant funding uplift was needed because of the growing complexity of the task. The quango, which advises ministers on how to prepare for global warming, spent £1.8m on its last such report, which ran to 142 pages. The funding uplift this time around means a similar length report would cost more than £50,000 per page. Andrew Bowie, Conservative shadow energy spokesman, said the scale of spending was 'absurd'. He said: 'As Kemi Badenoch and I have been warning, the costs of Ed Miliband's net zero by 2050 zealotry is far too high for the British public – and the taxpayer should not be forced to shell out millions of pounds because Labour are too afraid to admit that.' Richard Tice, Reform's energy spokesman, said: 'It's unbelievable that almost £10m will be wasted on the most expensive net zero report ever. 'It will merely sit on the shelf gathering dust full of self-congratulatory comments whilst ignoring the critical issue which is that net zero is driving up electricity prices and destroying industrial jobs.'
