Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise v Secretary of State for Transport

Hearing dates: 4 & 5 November 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 8 December 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

The Claimant seeks judicial review, in accordance with section 118(1) of the Planning Act 2008 (“PA 2008”), of the decision of the Defendant, dated 3 April 2025, to grant a development consent order (“DCO”) to the Interested Party (“IP”) for the expansion of London Luton Airport (“the Airport”).

The IP is the owner of the Airport and trades as “Luton Rising”. It is a commercial business and Public Airport Company, owned by Luton Borough Council, for community benefit.

The Claimant is an unincorporated association which was established to oppose the expansion of the Airport. It made extensive submissions to the Examining Authority (“ExA”).

In summary, the Claimant's grounds of challenge were as follows:

i) Ground 1: Error of law in excluding from the environmental impact assessment (“EIA”), made under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (“the EIA Regulations”), the greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions from inbound flights, contrary to R (Finch) v Surrey County Council & Ors [2024] UKSC 20, [2024] PTSR 988. Further, a failure to assess the significance of the indirect effects on the climate, contrary to the EIA Regulations and Finch.

ii) Ground 2: Unlawful failure to take account of a material consideration, by failing to consider the treatment of inbound flight emissions by the ExA in relation to the expansion of Gatwick Airport.

iii) Ground 3: Error of law in excluding from the EIA the likely significant impacts of non-carbon dioxide (“non-CO ₂”) emissions on the climate, contrary to Finch.

iv) Ground 4: Error of law in concluding that the Government's duty under the Climate Change Act 2008 (“CCA 2008”) to adopt policies and procedures that ensure the legislative duty to reach net zero is complied with was a “pollution control regime”.

v) Ground 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 (“the CROW Act”).

vi) Ground 6: Error of law in relying extensively on the Jet Zero Strategy (“JZS”), which is itself unlawful. The lawfulness of the JZS is currently subject to legal challenge. I dismissed the claims in R (Possible (the 10:10 Foundation) and Another) v SST [2025] EWHC 1101 (Admin) and an application for permission to appeal against my decision is pending.

On 25 July 2025, Lieven J. gave permission on the papers on Grounds 1 to 5. She stayed Ground 6, pending a final decision in the Jet Zero Strategy claim. On 3 November 2025, Holgate LJ granted permission to appeal against Lieven J.'s order for a stay, and gave directions for the filing of pleadings and an oral permission hearing before a High Court Judge.

Chronology of key events

In 2023 the IP submitted an application for development consent for the expansion of the Airport under section 37(2) PA 2008. The proposed development would increase overall passenger capacity from 19 million passengers per annum (“mppa”) to 32 mppa. This would involve the construction of a new passenger terminal and additional aircraft stands to the northeast of the existing runway. The proposed development would also include other works, set out at paragraph 4 of the Defendant's decision letter dated 3 April 2025 (“DL/4”).

Between 10 August 2023 and 10 February 2024, the proposed development was examined by the ExA, comprising five inspectors. On 10 May 2024 the ExA submitted its report and recommendations to the Defendant.

The ExA recommended that the Defendant should withhold consent. In summary, the ExA considered that “the public benefits do not outweigh the environmental harms” (ExA/8.1.6). However, in the event that the Defendant disagreed, the ExA identified a number of matters on which the Defendant might wish to obtain further information.

Between 2 August 2024 and 11 November 2024, the Defendant invited responses to further consultations. These included a further consultation on the potential implications of the judgment in Finch on 29 August 2024 (which post-dated the ExA report) and on the duty under section 85 of the CROW Act on 27 September 2024.

In her letter of 3 April 2025, the Defendant granted development consent and made the London Luton Airport Expansion Development Consent Order 2025, which came into force on 24 April 2025.

Statutory framework

The DCO concerns development which is designated as a nationally significant infrastructure project, governed by the regime set out in the PA 2008. The DCO was granted by the Defendant under section 114 PA 2008.

The ‘Airports National Policy Statement: new runway capacity and infrastructure at airports in the South East of England’ (“the ANPS”) is a designated National Policy Statement under section 5 PA 2008, which was presented to Parliament pursuant to section 9(8) PA 2008 in June 2018.

By regulation 4(2) of the EIA Regulations, the Secretary of State is prohibited from granting development consent unless an EIA, if required, has been carried out.

Regulation 5 of the EIA Regulations sets out the EIA process, so far as is material, as follows:

“ 5.—Environmental impact assessment process

(1) The environmental impact assessment (“the EIA”) is a process consisting of—

(a) the preparation of an environmental statement or updated environmental statement, as appropriate, by the applicant;

(b) the carrying out of any consultation, publication and notification as required under these Regulations or, as necessary, any other enactment in respect of EIA development; and

(c) the steps that are required to be undertaken by the Secretary of State under regulation 21 or by the relevant authority under regulation 25, as appropriate.

(2) The EIA must identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of the proposed development on the following factors—

(a) population and human health;

(b) biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under [any law that implemented] Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC;

(c) land, soil, water, air and climate;

(d) material assets, cultural heritage and the landscape;

(e) the interaction between the factors referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d).

…”

Regulation 14 of the EIA Regulations sets out the requirements of an environmental statement so far as is material, as follows:

“ 14.—Environmental statements

(1) An application for an order granting development consent for EIA development must be accompanied by an environmental statement.

(2) An environmental statement is a statement which includes at least—

(a) a description of the proposed development comprising information on the site, design, size and other relevant features of the development;

(b) a description of the likely significant effects of the proposed development on the environment;

(c) a description of any features of the proposed development, or measures envisaged in order to avoid, prevent or reduce and, if possible, offset likely significant adverse effects on the environment;

(d) a description of the reasonable alternatives studied by the applicant, which are relevant to the proposed development and its specific characteristics, and an indication of the main reasons for the option chosen, taking into account the effects of the development on the environment;

(e) a non-technical summary of the information referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d); and

(f) any additional information specified in Schedule 4 relevant to the specific characteristics of the particular development or type of development and to the environmental features likely to be significantly affected.

(3) The environmental statement referred to in paragraph (1) must—

…

(b) include the information reasonably required for reaching a reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the development on the environment, taking into account current knowledge and methods of assessment;

…

(4) In order to ensure the completeness and quality of the environmental statement—

(a) the applicant must ensure that the environmental statement is prepared by competent experts; and

(b) the environmental statement must be accompanied by a statement from the applicant outlining the relevant expertise or qualifications of such experts.”

Schedule 4 to the EIA Regulations describes the information to be included in an environmental statement, so far as is material, as follows:

“3. A description of the relevant aspects of the current state of the environment (baseline scenario) and an outline of the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the development as far as natural changes from the baseline scenario can be assessed with reasonable effort on the basis of the availability of environmental information and scientific knowledge.

4. A description of the factors specified in regulation 5(2) likely to be significantly affected by the...