Barclay and Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions (CAGNE) v Secretary of State for Transport

On 23 June 2026, the High Court handed down its judgment in Barclay and CAGNE v SST and Gatwick Airport (interested party) [2026] EWHC 1556 (Admin). The judgment followed a four-day hearing from 20-23 January 2023. Both Claimants had sought permission to bring a claim for judicial review of the Secretary of State for Transport's decision of 21 September 2025 to make the Gatwick Airport (Northern Runway Project) Development Consent Order 2025 (the "DCO"). The DCO authorises development which will enable dual runway operations at Gatwick Airport.

Mr Barclay advanced five grounds of challenge:
(1) The SST failed properly to understand the Airports National Policy Statement (June 2018) [“the ANPS”] and/or failed to have regard to the relevant policy of the ANPS concerning the expansion of Gatwick Airport. (2) In granting development consent pursuant to section 114 of the 2008 Act, the SST was obliged but failed to exercise her power so as to promote the policies and objects of the statutory scheme. (3) In making the DCO the SST acted in breach of certain provisions of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 [“the EIA Regulations”] and/or failed to reach conclusions on the DCO and/or the adequacy of the environmental impact assessment [“EIA”] for the proposed development in a procedurally rational manner; or alternatively, the SST’s conclusions were Wednesbury unreasonable. (4) The SST’s consideration of need and economic benefits was procedurally irrational and/or Wednesbury unreasonable. (5) The SST erred in her interpretation of the Aviation Policy Framework (March 2013) [“the APF”] and ANPS policies governing aviation noise and/or in any event, reached irrational conclusions on noise.

CAGNE advanced six grounds of challenge:
(1) The SST took an irrational approach to the significance of GHG emissions and/or failed to give adequate reasons for her approach to that issue. (2) The SST erred in law in her consideration of GHG emissions from international inbound flights under the EIA Regulations. (3) The SST erred in law in her consideration of non-carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions under the EIA Regulations. (4) The SST failed to take into account material risks to the Jet Zero Strategy (July 2022) [“JZS”] and/or to comply with her Tameside duty of reasonable inquiry and/or took an irrational approach to the JZS. (5) The SST unlawfully failed to weigh harmful noise impacts in the planning balance. (6) The SST imposed an unlawful requirement in Schedule 2 to the DCO in respect of Work No 44 (wastewater treatment works).

Paragraph 366 of the judgment records the outcome: "I grant permission on grounds (1) and (4) of Mr Barclay’s claim but reject both grounds. I refuse permission on grounds (2), (3) and (5) of Mr Barclay’s claim. I grant permission on grounds (1), (6) and (7) of CAGNE’s claim but reject each of those grounds. I refuse permission on CAGNE’s grounds (2), (3) and (4). CAGNE withdrew ground (5) of its claim. The overall outcome is that both claims are dismissed."

CAGNE and Mr Barclay have applied for permission to appeal the High Court judgment.