The Secretaries of State for Transport and for Levelling up, Housing and Communities granted the called-in planning decision to permit Luton Airport 1 million more passengers and a bigger noise footprint, after its planning conditions and prudent slot management had been ignored in a dash for cash. The Inspectors who conducted the Inquiry in 2022 observed that local people had lost trust in the planning system, and there is now a condition that the Noise Management Plan is followed.
In addition, Luton Airport cannot expand beyond 18 million passengers until it produces:
- a strategy to reduce its long term noise footprint
- a Transport Plan
- a Carbon Reduction Strategy
There were significant imbalances in the decision which favour the Airport over the environment:
The Inspectors refer to the noise conditions being breached due to increased demand and modernisation of the fleet not having kept up with that – but didn’t highlight the need to keep the two in balance, and ignored the evidence of financial incentivisation for faster-than-balanced growth which continued even after a breach of noise conditions was forecast. How can people be confident in airport governance?
LADACAN and the Harpenden Society showed that the Airport’s forecasts of which planes would be in the fleet in future years did not stand up to scrutiny, but the Inspectors did not accept our findings because we had not spoken to the airlines – even though airlines are clear commercial beneficiaries of the application.
LADACAN highlighted errors in the data feeding the Airport’s noise contour model, which would affect the assessment, but the Inspectors did not accept this because we did not have an alternative model – knowing it’s impossible to set one up without full access to all the relevant data, which the Airport keeps to itself.
The Inspectors discounted clear evidence which showed that the Airport’s noise model had been recalibrated in 2015 to reduce contours by 6% to the benefit of the Airport, by using unrepresentative data.
Our analysis showed that a key Noise Monitor was giving unreliable readings because it was located right next to the M1 and not under the centre line of the aircraft swathe, but the Inspectors were not convinced.
No evidence was provided to prove the Airport’s assertion that 85% of passengers driving to the Airport would use the M1, yet the Inspectors decided to believe that even though motorists coming from East of the Airport often avoid the M1/M25 due to the likelihood of traffic jams, and use local roads instead.
The Inspectors acknowledged strong opposition to the proposal from the Hertfordshire Councils, from many Parish Councils and from individuals and organisations, but did not attach weight to it in the planning balance.
The decision weighed a few hundred extra jobs versus a few hundred extra people subject to more noise and health harms, and decided the jobs won because of the high deprivation (which may be because the income from the airport has been spent on vanity projects rather than on reducing deprivation in Luton).
The Inspectors agreed that the expansion of capacity would add to carbon emissions, but believed the Jet Zero aspiration that aviation emissions (one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise) will be reduced – an aspiration without clear pathways which has been challenged in the High Court in April 2025.
There was a commitment to a proposed new noise insulation scheme with £4,500 (index linked) per property within an uncapped annual fund to ensure that all properties meeting the relevant criteria can be insulated within 5 years, but this does not appear to be secured by a planning condition or obligation.
The full decision document can be downloaded here: 19mppa decision document
There were some key themes in the Inquiry:
- The implications of the proposal for meeting the challenge of climate change
=> we argued that all emissions matter when seeking to meet the challenges of Net Zero - The effect of noise associated with the proposal on health, quality of life, and the character of the area
=> we showed that there are significant flaws in the Airport’s noise data analysis and contour model - The effect of the proposal on air quality
=> local people spoke of smelling fumes from the fuel and finding smuts in their gardens - The effect of the proposal on sustainable transport objectives and transport infrastructure
=> the Inspectors focused hard on the extra traffic burden in the light of the already crowded network - The socio-economic implications of the proposed development
=> we argued that the jobs figures are over-estimated and there is risk in not diversifying - Whether the proposed development would be consistent with the Development Plan and other relevant policies
=> we argued that the proposals will not lead to longer term noise reduction and are against the local plan - The effect of other considerations on the overall planning balance
=> we highlighted the financially-incentivised accelerated growth which led to this expansion proposal - The Airport Operator flouted the Borough Council’s planning conditions
=> we highlighted the collusion between Owning Company, Operator and Council
Anyone living locally and impacted by the noise from Luton Airport is welcome to join LADACAN to ensure their voice is heard: please see https://ladacan.org/about-us/ for details.
Do follow us on social media using the handle @GoLadacan
Click the link below to go to the next page to find out more about what they are proposing.