High Court challenge to Luton Airport expansion

Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (“LADACAN”), an unincorporated association constituted to oppose the expansion of Luton Airport, brought a judicial review against the Secretary of State’s decision to grant development consent to the expansion of London Luton Airport. This decision was taken in spite of the recommendation of planning inspectors that permission should not be granted. The following grounds of challenge was considered in the High Court: Ground 1. There was an error in law in that greenhouse gas emissions from inbound flights were excluded from the environmental impact assessment (EIA), contrary to the decision in Finch. The UK carbon budgets calculated emissions for outbound flights only. Ground 2. There was a lack of consistency in approach between the Luton Airport decision and the process for approving Gatwick Airport’s expansion, specifically that inbound flight emissions had been considered in relation to Gatwick Airport’s expansion. Ground 3. There was an error of law in that the likely significant impacts of non-carbon dioxide emissions were excluded from the environmental impact assessment, contrary to the decision in Finch. Ground 4. There was an error of law in concluding that the government’s duty under the Climate Change Act 2008 to adopt policies and procedures to help reach net zero was a ‘pollution control regime.’ Ground 5. There was a failure to comply with duties under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which require that developments in an area of outstanding national beauty must seek to further the conservation and natural beauty of the area. On December 8, 2025, Justice Lang of the High Court dismissed the claim. Regarding ground 1, the Court found that it was open to the Secretary of State to use national carbon budgets to assess GHG emissions. It was also lawful for the Secretary of State not to assess emissions from inbound flights as it was lawful for them to conclude that they were not capable of meaningful assessment against UK carbon budgets. Regarding ground 2, the court found that the Gatwick Airport report related to a “different examination for a different project at a different airport”. Regarding ground 3, the Court found that non-carbon dioxide emissions had been taken into account, but “on a qualitative and high-level basis because of significant scientific uncertainty about the scale of their effects, and the lack of any relevant benchmark against which to contextualise their effect”. There was no legal obligation to embark upon an attempt to quantify such non-CO 2  emissions which were only indicative. In fact, “the nature and extent of the assessment was a matter for the decision-maker to decide”. Regarding ground 4, the Court found that analysis in a case not supported by the claimants (Bristol Airport Action Network Co-ordinating Committee) v SSLUHC [2023] PTSR 853) was the correct case to reference, and that the decision therein had not changed as a result of Finch. The Court also disagreed on ground 5.