Luton Airport expansion under judicial review in High Court today
LADACAN has been granted a Judicial Review of the decision by Secretary of State Heidi Alexander to overturn the recommendation of National Planning Inspectors and permit further massive expansion of Luton Airport.
Estelle Dehon KC of Cornerstone Barristers will argue that the Secretary of State’s decision to overrule the recommendation of planning inspectors and permit massive further expansion of Luton Airport was unlawful.
Andrew Lambourne the chair of LADACAN says £23,000 was raised in crowd funding efforts to pay for the legal fees during the review.
Andrew went onto say:
"Overall I think there will be a huge degradation in the quality of life of the local people if the airport doubles it's capacity yet again."
"Those effects will not only impact noise from additional flights but the practical effects of the additional 30,000 passengers day traveling to and from the airport."
The airport expansion plans were submitted in February 2023, and planning inspectors examined the plans between August 2023 and February 2024. In May 2024, the planning inspectors published their report and recommended that planning permission for the expansion should not be granted, stating that the public benefits of the development did not outweigh the detrimental impact on the environment.
However, the Transport Secretary went against this recommendation and granted development consent for the expansion.
What are the grounds for legal challenge?
- Error of law in relying extensively on the Jet Zero Strategy, which is itself unlawful.
- Error of law in failing to give adequate reasons for finding compliance with section 85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
- Error of law in concluding that the Government’s duty under the Climate Change Act 2008 to adopt policies and procedures that ensure the legislative duty to reach net zero is complied with was a “pollution control regime”.
- Error of law in excluding from the Environmental Impact Assessment the likely significant impacts of non-CO2 emissions on the climate, contrary to Finch.
- Unlawful failure to take account of a material consideration, by failing to consider the treatment of inbound flight emissions by the Examining Authority in relation to the expansion of Gatwick Airport.
- Error of law in excluding from the environmental impact assessment the greenhouse gas emissions from inbound flights, contrary to the “Finch v Surrey County Council” decision.
Following the November hearings, it is likely to be several months before a final decision is issued.