Legal challenge to Luton Airport expansion: A terminal decision ahead?
The Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (“LADACAN”) has been granted permission to bring its judicial review challenge against the expansion of London Luton Airport to the High Court.
LADACAN launched its legal claim in May and argues that the government acted unlawfully when it approved the development consent order in April 2025 (the “Order”), failing to properly assess the climate impacts of the proposed expansion.
The Order approves the construction of a second terminal, taxiways, and aircraft stands, but notably, no new runway. Despite the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation to reject the proposal due to environmental concerns, the Secretary of State for Transport, Heidi Alexander, consent, citing economic benefits.
Legal Grounds for the Challenge
LADACAN’s legal claim is based on the following 6 grounds of challenge:
1: Error of law in excluding from the environmental impact assessment (the “EIA”) the greenhouse gas emissions from inbound flights, contrary to the decision in Finch v Surrey County Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1871 (“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-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, which requires consideration of impacts on protected landscapes.
6: Error of law in relying extensively on the Jet Zero Strategy, which is itself unlawful.
The Finch precedent
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Finch clarified that indirect emissions, even if they occur off-site or are not directly controlled by the developer, can still be material to the environmental impact of a project.
In the case of Finch, this meant that oil extracted from a site must be included in the EIA if reasonably foreseeable and significant. Here, LADACAN argues that the same principle applies to inbound flights at London Luton Airport. As whilst the airport does not operate the aircraft, the emissions from inbound flights are foreseeable, significant and integral to the proposed development’s purpose.
Jet Zero Strategy
A central aspect of the challenge is the role of the Jet Zero Strategy (the “JZS”). Published in 2022, the JZS outlines how the aviation sector might reach net zero by 2050. However, it is a non-binding framework and has been subject to legal challenge itself for relying on speculative technologies such as sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), hydrogen-powered aircraft, and carbon capture, as well as carbon offsetting.
LADACAN argues that the government is legally flawed in its assumption that a development’s alignment with the JZS is sufficient in addressing its climate impact. In their view, relying on the JZS without conducting a detailed EIA undermines the strategy’s intent and risks setting a precedent for unsustainable development.
Economy vs. Environment
The Department for Transport has defended the Order, justifying it on the expansion’s economic benefits. For example, the owner of the airport, Luton Rising, has said the expansion could create up to 11,000 jobs.
However, LADACAN asserts that economic growth should not come at the expense of environmental integrity and long-term sustainability. Andrew Lambourne, chair of LADACAN, argues that “the government should be dampening demand for carbon-intensive activities such as frequent flying, rather than encouraging it.” On the other hand,
Alongside this, The Environmental Audit Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into whether airport expansions are compatible with the UK’s legally binding climate targets.
Next Steps
LADACAN is crowdfunding its legal case ahead of the hearing, which is due to be heard in the High Court earlier this year or early 2026.
While a spokesperson for Luton Rising has declined to comment during ongoing proceedings, many wait to see how the High Court will approach the issues raised, which detail both planning and environmental concerns.
With the hearing on the horizon, the outcome could have implications not just for London Luton Airport’s future, but also for how similar developments are assessed going forward.
