Supreme Court refuses to hear application for extension of time to appeal in Luton Airport expansion case

The application for permission to appeal had been lodged by Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (LADACAN), which has been seeking to challenge a development consent order (DCO) that allows the expansion of the airport to 32 million passengers a year.

In December 2025, Mrs Justice Lang dismissed LADACAN’s claim for judicial review, refused permission to appeal, and ordered the appellant to pay the Secretary of State’s capped costs.

In advance of this, on 28 July 2025 an update to civil practice (paragraph 17.3 of Practice Direction (“PD”) 52D) had been published with effect from 1 October 2025 for appeal notices filed on or after that date.

The effect was to reduce the time to file the appellant’s notice of appeal from 21 days to seven days for claims brought under section 13 or section 118 of the 2008 Act relating to NSIPs [Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects].

The Supreme Court noted in its background on the case that in light of this change, LADACAN should have filed its notice of appeal on 15 December 2025, and the skeleton argument by 23 or 24 December 2025 depending on when the notice was sealed.

LADACAN filed its unsealed notice, grounds, and skeleton argument on 24 December 2025.

The defendant, London Luton Airport Limited, notified the Court of Appeal that LADACAN had filed its application out of time without any extension of time application.

LADACAN subsequently applied for an extension of time and relief from sanctions that day.

After a hearing on 19 May 2026, the Court of Appeal refused LADACAN’s extension of time application and stated that permission to appeal the decision of Lang J was therefore also refused.

However, the Court of Appeal did not consider the merits of the permission to appeal application.

In June the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal the refusal of an extension of time.

LADACAN subsequently appealed the refusal to the Supreme Court

The parties were in dispute as to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain such an appeal where the Court of Appeal has refused permission to appeal the order of Lang J.

The application was issued subject to jurisdiction.

However, permission has now been refused by the Supreme Court.

Cllr Tahmina Saleem, Leader of Luton Council, said: “London Luton Airport sits at the heart of our town, and I’ve seen first-hand what Luton Rising’s community investment funding can mean for local families – helping lift children out of poverty, bringing greater employment opportunities, and giving young people the self-belief that they can go further in their aspirations. As the airport grows, so does the power to change local lives and so we are determined to make the most of this once-in-a-generation opportunity.”

Paul Kehoe, Chair of council-owned company Luton Rising, said: “This is a landmark moment, not just for Luton, but also for how the UK thinks about publicly-owned infrastructure delivering for communities and the country.

“We are very pleased to now have the certainty we have been working towards. As a community-owned organisation, every passenger travelling through our airport means more investment in local people and services.”

In a statement LADACAN said: “The Supreme Court has refused to grant LADACAN permission to appeal against the extraordinary way in which the Appeal Court dismissed our request for an extension of time, our request to appeal the High Court judgement permitting Luton Rising’s Development Consent Order (DCO), and our grounds of appeal.

“The panel of appeal judges said they ‘refuse the extension of time and thus refuse permission to appeal’ and ended the session, without actually hearing the permission request or grounds of appeal. This left us feeling that justice had not been served, and did not actually resolve the substance of our appeal against the massive expansion of Luton Airport. However, the Supreme Court assessors have decided ‘the application does not raise an arguable point of law’.”

LADACAN added: “We believe our underlying case against the Secretary of State remains strong: the approval of near-doubling of capacity at Luton Airport unlawfully failed to properly assess its climate impact, in ways that matter for every major infrastructure project decision. But the government’s approach to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects is to fast-track them where possible. Last October the time limit for filing notice of an appeal against a High Court judgment supporting development was reduced to just 7 days.”