Court of Appeal rejects campaigners’ legal challenge against Luton Airport expansion plans
A legal claim opposing the expansion of Luton Airport was rejected by a judge in the Court of Appeal earlier this week.
The challenge by campaign group Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (LADACAN), on whether granting development consent for the project was unlawful, was initially dismissed by the High Court in November 2025.
Now, after a hearing at the Court of Appeal, the decision to dismiss the claim has been upheld.
Nick Platts, managing director of Luton Rising, the council company that owns the airport for community benefit, welcomed the court’s decision.
Nick explained: “We have always strongly believed in the hugely significant benefits that the long-term growth of our airport will provide. It will create nearly 11,000 new jobs, make a vital contribution to local, regional and national economic growth, and enable us to generate hugely increased positive social impact for communities.
"We look forward to being able to deliver it as soon as possible.”
But Andrew Lambourne, of LADACAN, described the outcome as ‘particularly concerning’.
He said: “... because London Luton Airport Limited’s evidence was that the procedural issue had no bearing on the progress of its expansion proposals, and did not make arguments for or against LADACAN’s procedural application. We await the written reasons from the court before deciding on next steps.”
He accused the court of putting “form over substance by prioritising the public interest of strict compliance with rules intended to make court challenges to NSIPs (nationally significant infrastructure projects) more difficult, over the vital public interest in making sure that the NSIP don’t generate unsustainable levels of greenhouse gas emissions”.
Plans for the airport’s expansion were submitted in February 2023, when Luton Rising proposed a new terminal with the potential to double the airport's annual passenger capacity with a significant increase in flights.
Campaigners took their concerns to the High Court over the lawfulness of the Transport Secretary’s decision to overrule planning inspectors, who recommended that permission be refused.
Leigh Day partner Ricardo Gama, who represents LADACAN, said the court had originally been due to allow parties a full two days to make the arguments for and against the lawfulness of the grant of development consent, as well as to hear on an extension of time request.
He said: “Instead, the court only allowed the parties half a day to make arguments over this initial procedural issue before deciding that the substantive arguments over the appeal could not go ahead."