High court hearing begins over Gatwick second runway decision
Local campaign group Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions says the £2.2 billion plans don't fully take climate change impacts into account.
A high court hearing's beginning today after a local campaign group opposed a decision to build a second runway at Gatwick Airport
Local campaign group Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions says the £2.2 billion plans don't fully take climate change impacts into account.
Plans for the project were submitted in July 2023 and following an examination period, were granted development consent by the Transport Secretary in September 2025.
CAGNE says that this decision was "flawed" - arguing that there are "numerous gaps in the environmental assessment" of the airport expansion, including in measuring emissions and noise pollution.
Sally Pavey, chair of CAGNE, said:
“The Transport Secretary seems to have taken a rose-tinted view of this planning application whilst the planning inspectorates recommended refusal.
“It is unrealistic to expect local authorities, and the taxpayer, to continue to meet the infrastructure costs of airport expansion and the loss of wellbeing due to ever increasing noise.
"Gatwick exports sterling out of the UK purse for leisure whilst endangering the planet further by ignoring the lack of accurate decarbonising by this sector.
"CAGNE is proud to represent residents of Sussex, Surrey, Kent and beyond in calling for this application for a new runway to be overruled.”
The case comes as the Department for Transport today announces £43 million towards green aviation projects.
They have not yet responded to Greatest Hits Radio's request for comment over the court case.
Meanwhile, a Gatwick spokesperson said:
“We are aware a claim for judicial review has been lodged in the High Court against the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport to approve our Northern Runway Project, with a hearing date now set.
"We intend to participate in the proceedings as an Interested Party.
"However, while legal proceedings are in progress it would not be appropriate to comment any further.”