High Court Confronts Gatwick Runway Approval Amid Environmental Contradiction Claims
The High Court has become the battleground for a significant legal challenge against the government's approval of Gatwick Airport's £2.2 billion second runway development. Campaign groups have launched judicial review proceedings, alleging that Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander reached "inherently contradictory and irrational" conclusions regarding the project's environmental impact.
The Core Contradiction: Climate Impact Versus Net-Zero Targets
At the heart of the legal challenge lies what campaigners describe as a fundamental inconsistency in the Secretary of State's decision-making process. Court documents reveal that Alexander, while approving the Northern Runway project in September, acknowledged it would have a "significant adverse effect" on climate change under Environmental Impact Assessment criteria.
Specifically, the transport secretary found the expansion would "not contribute" or would "fall short of fully contributing" to the UK's legally binding net-zero trajectory. However, in what campaign groups argue is a contradictory position, she simultaneously concluded the development would "not materially impact" the government's ability to meet those same climate targets.
Campaign Groups Mount Legal Offensive
The judicial review has been brought by Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions (CAGNE) alongside Peter Barclay, chairman of the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC). Their legal team, led by barrister Estelle Dehon KC from Leigh Day, contends that Alexander's decision is legally flawed and should be declared unlawful.
"This was the largest of the applications thus far by the Secretary of State," Dehon KC told the court, emphasising the significance of the Gatwick expansion decision. The campaign groups are seeking to have the approval quashed entirely, arguing that such contradictory findings cannot form a rational basis for decision-making.
Government Defends Expansion Decision
The government is vigorously defending its position, with Nigel Pleming KC acting as lead counsel. Gatwick Airport itself is participating in the proceedings as a third party. The legal arguments are scheduled to unfold over three days, with the case concluding on Friday before Mr Justice Mould.
A Department for Transport spokesperson reinforced the government's position, stating: "We are backing airport expansion to deliver local and national growth, providing highly skilled jobs for local communities which will boost access to opportunity." The spokesperson added: "We are clear [that] expansion will only be pursued in line with our climate, noise, and environmental obligations."
Economic Growth Versus Environmental Responsibility
The Gatwick expansion represents a substantial infrastructure project that would increase the airport's passenger capacity to over 80 million passengers annually by 2047. At the time of approval, Alexander described the decision as a "no-brainer" for economic growth, highlighting the potential benefits for regional development and employment.
However, the legal challenge focuses squarely on whether proper process was followed in balancing these economic considerations against environmental responsibilities. The campaign groups argue that the apparent contradiction between recognising significant climate impact while claiming no material effect on net-zero targets demonstrates procedural irrationality.
Broader Implications for Infrastructure Planning
This case carries significant implications for how major infrastructure projects are approved in an era of heightened environmental awareness and legal climate commitments. The outcome could establish important precedents regarding how government ministers reconcile economic development ambitions with environmental protection obligations.
The judicial review represents a critical test of the government's approach to infrastructure planning within the framework of its net-zero commitments. As the legal arguments continue through the week, all parties await Mr Justice Mould's consideration of whether the transport secretary's decision-making process was legally sound or fundamentally flawed.
