LADACAN has been granted a Judicial Review of the decision by Secretary of State Heidi Alexander to overturn the recommendation of National Planning Inspectors and permit further massive expansion of Luton Airport. Our legal team is now preparing for what looks like two days of hearings in the High Court. If we are successful, the decision will be quashed and will have to be re-made lawfully.
The government is recklessly gambling with all our futures by continuing to permit aviation expansion without credible pathways to meet its net zero commitments. Each month brings new evidence of climate change impacts, yet there is still no carbon cap for UK aviation and airports are grabbing what capacity they can while best advice from the UN and the Climate Change Committee is being ignored. Kicking the can down the road is no answer – and we’re fast running out of road.
If you care about local quality of life and agree that further expansion of Luton Airport is misguided, please help us seek justice by making a donation.
The link to the crowdfunding page is here: Judicial Review of Luton Airport Expansion Decision – or you can search “Crowd Justice Luton Airport” online.
When donating, feel free to reduce the ‘suggested tip to CrowdJustice’ to £1 since they also charge a small handling fee on the donation – and do leave a comment indicating your support.
Our 6 grounds of challenge are:
1: Error of law in excluding from the environmental impact assessment the greenhouse gas emissions from inbound flights, contrary to the “Finch v Surrey County Council” decision.
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 Environmental Impact Assessment the likely significant impacts of non-CO2 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.
6: Error of law in relying extensively on the Jet Zero Strategy, which is itself unlawful.
The reviewing Judge has said all the grounds are arguable, and as we had requested the last will be considered once a pending application to the Court of Appeal regarding the lawfulness of Jet Zero has been decided.
We now await further exchanges of paperwork and a decision on when the hearings will be held.