High Court rejects all five grounds in Luton Airport expansion legal challenge

Luton And District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise's (LADACAN) claim argued, among other things, that the Secretary of State for Transport's decision involved a failed environmental impact assessment (EIA) and ignored the Supreme Court's decision in R (Finch) v Surrey County Council & Ors [2024] UKSC 20, [2024] PTSR 988.

The decision in Finch held that an EIA must assess the downstream effects on climate from the combustion of the oil produced.

The approved plans will see a new terminal built, boosting the airport's passenger capacity from 19 million passengers to 32 million per annum.

Planning inspectors previously advised the Secretary of State to withhold consent for the expansion.

Despite this, the Secretary of State ultimately granted development consent in April of this year and made the London Luton Airport Expansion Development Consent Order 2025.

The campaign group describes the approval as a "watershed moment for the UK's climate future", claiming that the development would undermine Net Zero objectives.

The High Court agreed to hear LADACAN's ensuing judicial review claim on the following grounds:

1. Error of law in excluding from the EIA, made under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the EIA Regulations), the greenhouse gas emissions from inbound flights, contrary to Finch. Further, a failure to assess the significance of the indirect effects on the climate, contrary to the EIA Regulations and Finch.
2. Unlawful failure to take account of a material consideration, by failing to consider the treatment of inbound flight emissions by the Examining Authority in relation to the expansion of Gatwick Airport.
3. Error of law in excluding from the EIA the likely significant impacts of non-carbon dioxide emissions on the climate, contrary to Finch.
4. Error of law in concluding that the Government's duty under the Climate Change Act 2008 to adopt policies and procedures that ensure the legislative duty to reach net zero is complied with was a "pollution control regime".
5. Error of law in failing to give adequate reasons for finding compliance with section 85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

In granting permission, Lieven J stayed a sixth ground, which concerned the Government's Jet Zero Strategy, pending the decision of a separate claim.

Following a hearing in early November, Mr Justice Lang ultimately rejected all five grounds.

LADACAN has since said it is considering an appeal of the High Court's decision.

A spokesperson for the group said: "The Supreme Court's Finch ruling made it clear that all significant climate effects must be assessed, even if scientific methods are still developing. The High Court's decision cements a planning system that looks backwards while the climate crisis accelerates. LADACAN's challenge aimed to push the system toward rational, evidence-based decisions that properly account for aviation's full climate footprint.

"That is why it's so important for us to consider an appeal: the outcome matters not only for Luton, but for every future airport proposal in the UK. This is a watershed moment, with the costs of climate change damage increasing and still no realistic and proven pathways to decarbonise aviation."

Adam Carey

See also: Airport expansion, EIAs and emissions - Estelle Dehon KC, Ruchi Parekh and Hannah Taylor look at the lessons from the High Court’s recent dismissal of a challenge to approval for the expansion of Luton Airport.