|
Campaigners have lost High Court challenges over the expansion of Gatwick Airport. UK Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander approved the £2.2 billion scheme in September, which would have seen the West Sussex airport move its emergency runway 12 metres north to accommodate around 100,000 more flights a year. Campaigner Peter Barclay and campaign group Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions, Cagne, took legal action against the Department for Transport over the decision, telling a January hearing that it was unlawful as the government did not properly assess the climate impacts of the expansion. The DfT and the airport’s owner, Gatwick Airport Ltd, defended the challenge, with lawyers for the site claiming it was ‘unarguable’. In a ruling on Tuesday, Justice Mould dismissed Barclay and Cagne’s bids. He said in the 100-page judgment that Alexander concluded that while the proposed development will have moderately adverse and significant effects, it will not ‘materially impact’ the government’s ability to meet net zero targets. The judge continued: ‘The Secretary of State for Transport does not resile from her finding that the proposed development will not fully contribute to the UK’s trajectory towards net zero. ‘On the contrary, that significant effect leads her to place moderate adverse weight against the making of the development consent order. ‘She does not, however, treat that finding as determinative of her judgment.’ Justice Mould concluded that it was ‘neither illogical nor contradictory’ for Alexander to not refuse the proposed development ‘on the basis that it would have a material impact on the ability of Government to meet its carbon reduction targets’. The judge also rejected an argument about the need for the expansion at Gatwick, given the proximity to Heathrow. He said the Department for Transport had considered that Gatwick is primarily a leisure airport, largely served by low-cost carrier flights, with passenger numbers expected to grow. Justice Mould said Alexander ‘considered both the need for and the socio-economic effects of the proposed development to be important and relevant considerations’ in making her decision, adding: ‘Her conclusions are rational and supported by proper, adequate and intelligible reasons.’ By Jess Glass, Press Association Law Editor Press Association: News source: PA Copyright 2026 Alliance News Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
|
