Permission granted for judicial review over Luton Airport expansion decision

In May, campaigners commenced the first steps of legal action against the government in relation to the proposed expansion of the airport, arguing that development consent was “granted unlawfully”.

In a letter to Heidi Alexander, Secretary of State for Transport, campaign group ‘The Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise’ (LADACAN) claimed the Secretary of State “ignored” the recommendation of national planning inspectors to refuse development permission, and that the plans for the expansion failed to include “adequate environmental assessments”.

Detailed examination of the expansion proposals began in August 2023 and took six months. The inspectors’ report was sent to the previous government.

The report concluded that the economic benefits of the proposals, aimed at expanding the airport’s passenger capacity via the construction of a new passenger terminal and additional aircraft stands, did not outweigh the environmental harms.

However, the Secretary of State granted consent for the development in April 2025.

Represented by law firm Leigh Day, LADACAN argue the decision was unlawful on the following grounds:

• The direct and indirect impacts of the development on climate change via greenhouse gases were incorrectly assessed, excluding emissions from inbound flights as well as emissions associated with the production and delivery of fuel.
• The plans for the development incorrectly rely on the ‘High Ambition’ scenario of the Jet Zero Strategy (JZS) – a strategy which is subject to ongoing legal challenge.
• There was an error in 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’.
• It was wrongfully assumed that compliance with the JZS meant that the climate impact of the development had been addressed. This assumption was flawed as the JZS itself is reliant on the planning process and assessments by planning decision makers.
• There was a lack of consistency between the Luton decision and the approach taken in the Gatwick Airport expansion assessment, which has been delayed while improvements are made to the plans to address environmental concerns.

Posting an update on Sunday (27 July) on its Crowd Justice page, LADACAN said: “The High Court Judge handling our application has agreed that our grounds for the application are arguable, and has granted our request for a delay on one ground pending the outcome of an Appeal Court case on the lawfulness of the government's Jet Zero strategy.”

Leigh Day partner Ricardo Gama, who represents LADACAN, said: “Our clients are pleased that a judge has found that their challenge to the grant of consent for the expansion of Luton Airport is arguable and should progress to a full hearing. An economic model which depends on the unchecked growth of industries which at present cannot be decarbonised is unsustainable in the long term. That is why our clients are disappointed that they are having to go all the way to the High Court to make sure that the carbon emissions of this project are properly assessed. We look forward to the High Court hearing.”

A spokesperson for Luton Rising, the airport's owner which is owned by Luton Borough Council, said: "We are aware of the decision of the Court. While legal proceedings are in progress it would not be appropriate to comment further."

Lottie Winson