Court of Appeal considers the decision to grant development consent for the expansion of Luton Airport this week
Planning & environment, Public law & judicial review, Cornerstone Climate
Background
On 19-20 May 2026, the Court of Appeal will hear a rolled-up appeal against the judgment of Mrs Justice Lang in R (Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) v Secretary of State for Transport [2025] EWHC 3206 (Admin).
The case concerns the Government’s decision to grant development consent for the expansion of London Luton Airport. A judicial review claim was brought by Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (“LADACAN”), a residents’ association constituted to oppose the expansion of Luton Airport. Mrs Justice Lang dismissed the claim at first instance in December 2025. LADACAN now appeals.
Grounds of appeal
Three grounds of appeal are being considered by the Court of Appeal on a rolled-up basis.
By the first ground, the Claimant argues that the Judge was wrong to conclude that the climate impact of greenhouse gas emissions from inbound international flights was lawfully assessed under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (“EIA Regulations”), and that the justification given for the treatment of such emissions was lawful. This ground grapples with the correct interpretation of the EIA Regulations 2017 in light of the judgment in R (Finch) v Surrey County Council and others [2024] 4 All E.R. 717.
The second ground of appeal concerns whether the Judge erred in law in concluding that the Secretary of State’s treatment of non-CO2 effects was lawful. This ground considers what constitutes an ‘assessment’ for the purposes of the EIA Regulations; what the precautionary principle requires in relation to the assessment of non-CO2 effects; and the scope of the judgment in R (Bristol Airport Action Network Coordinating Committee) v SSLUHC [2023] PTSR 853 (“BAAN”).
The final ground of appeal concerns whether the Government’s duties under the Climate Change Act 2008 comprised a pollution control regime. The Claimant argues that the High Court in BAAN did not legitimately or correctly distinguish the earlier Court of Appeal decision in Gladman Developments Ltd v SSCLG [2020] PTSR 128 in relation to the application of the policy presumption that planning decision-makers should assume that pollution control regimes will operate effectively.
Time limits for NSIP appeals to the Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal will also consider the new timescales for appeals to the Court of Appeal in cases concerning Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (“NSIPs”), including whether an extension of time should be granted. This is the first NSIP appeal affected by the new procedural rule. Further detail on the changes can be found here.
LADACAN is represented by Estelle Dehon KC, Ruchi Parekh, and Hannah Taylor, instructed by Ricardo Gama at Leigh Day.
