Decision to grant development consent for the expansion of Luton Airport under judicial review in the High Court this week
Cornerstone Climate, Public Law and Judicial Review, Planning and Environment
Today, the Government’s decision to grant development consent for the expansion of London Luton Airport comes under scrutiny in the High Court. The judicial review claim is brought by Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (“LADACAN”), an unincorporated association constituted to oppose the expansion of Luton Airport, particularly on the basis of aircraft noise and the environmental impact on the local area.
Development Consent Order Challenge
LADACAN are challenging the decision of the Secretary of State to grant a Development Consent Order for the expansion of London Luton Airport. The proposed expansion of Luton Airport would increase overall passenger capacity from 19 million passengers per annum (“mppa”) to 32mppa. This would involve the construction of a new passenger terminal and additional aircraft stands to the northeast of the existing runway.
Five grounds of challenge will be considered by the High Court. The first three grounds concern whether the Secretary of State unlawfully failed to take into account the full effects of the proposed expansion on the climate, in particular by failing to take into account the emissions from inbound international flights, and the likely significant effects of non-CO2 emissions on the climate. These grounds grapple with the correct interpretation of the Environmental Impact Regulations 2017 in light of the judgment in R (Finch) v Surrey County Council and others [2024] 4 All E.R. 717.
Climate Change Act 2008
The Claimant also argues that the Secretary of State was wrong to assume that the Climate Change Act 2008 would operate effectively in coming to her decision. The Claimant argues that the High Court in R (BAAN) v SSLUHC [2023] PTSR 853 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.
Finally, the Claimant argues that the Secretary of State failed to give adequate reasons for finding that the newly strengthened duty in section 85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, namely to “further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty”, had been complied with.
The judicial review will be heard in the High Court on 4-5 November 2025. LADACAN is represented by Estelle Dehon KC, Ruchi Parekh, and Hannah Taylor, instructed by Ricardo Gama at Leigh Day.
