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 (DfT) 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 Limited, defended the challenge, with lawyers for the site claiming it was “unarguable”.
In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Mould dismissed Mr Barclay and Cagne’s bids.
He said in the 100-page judgment that Mrs 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.”
Mr Justice Mould concluded that it was “neither illogical nor contradictory” for Mrs 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.
Mr Justice Mould said Mrs 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.”
In a statement after the ruling, Cagne said it would not accept the judgment “as the final word”.
The group said: “Our legal team will now consider an appeal, and we will continue to stand up for the communities who will be forced to live with the consequences of this expansion.
“Cagne are obviously disappointed by today’s ruling. Communities across Sussex, Surrey and Kent helped fund this legal action because they have grave and legitimate concerns about the proposed expansion: the lack of airport funding for essential infrastructure, the absence of proper investment in sewerage treatment, the increased noise burden on local residents, worsening air quality, and the significant rise in CO2 and other harmful emissions.
“Today’s ruling provides no reassurance for those concerns. It does not change the fact that local communities are being asked to carry the consequences while the airport fails to provide the funding needed to protect the people and places affected.
“It is fundamentally wrong that taxpayers should be expected to meet the costs of new runway operations while shareholders stand to profit from an additional 101,000 flights a year and 80 million passengers. The public should not be left to pay for the infrastructure, environmental damage and disruption created by private gain.
“This government must stop viewing aviation expansion through rose-tinted glasses and relying on unsubstantiated claims of economic benefit while ignoring the vast local and global environmental costs.
“Communities deserve honesty, accountability and protection — not another decision that sidelines their health, homes and environment.”
Mr Barclay said after the decision: “Both before and since the development consent order was approved by the Secretary of State, the Climate Change Committee, and now the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee also, have strongly recommended there should be no airport expansion.
“The expansion decision ignores that advice and the judgment today provides no answer on how outdated National Policy Statements should be addressed.
“Thus, we must continue to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision to allow Gatwick to proceed with this highly damaging project.”
A Gatwick spokesman said: “We are pleased with today’s High Court ruling to uphold the government’s careful decision to grant planning approval for our Northern Runway Project.
“Our exciting plans will deliver significant business, tourism and trade benefits for the UK, including 14,000 new jobs and a £1 billion boost to the economy every year.
“This is a victory for common sense. We now look forward to turning our plans into reality and will announce further details in due course.”
A Department for Transport spokesman said: “We welcome the High Court’s decision to uphold our approval of expansion at Gatwick Airport.
“This is a project that balances our environmental and climate commitments with huge economic benefits – bringing around 14,000 new jobs to local people and delivering £1 billion a year to benefit all four corners of the UK.”
Source link
[Featured]
[Just In]
