1/ This take on the Heathrow runway judgment falsely characterises both the reasoning and the outcome.
2/ The press summary of the judgment, perhaps anticipating a knee jerk populist response from a non lawyer like this one, points out that it applies normal standards of judicial review. The judgment concerns the legality of the policy, not its merits. 
3/ Most of the arguments against the runway are rejected, apart from the argument based on an *Act of Parliament*, which requires an explanation of how such statements are consistent with government climate change policy (now including the Paris agreement).
4/ Of course there was an argument for interpreting that Act of Parliament differently. But the interpretation in the judgment is far from implausible. And the simple way forward is to ask Parliament to amend the law in question (the Planning Act).
5/ As for the remedy, it's clear that "killing off" a third runway is an overstatement. It's a possibility if a revised statement is issued (or, as I said, if Parliament amends the Planning Act). Note that the government neither objected to the remedy nor plans to appeal.
