Campaigners fighting the expansion of Gatwick Airport have lost two High Court challenges — but immediately signalled they would appeal, refusing to accept the judgment as “the final word”.
The ruling by Mr Justice Mould clears the way for a £2.2bn plan approved in September by Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander to move Gatwick’s emergency runway 12 metres north, creating a two-runway operation that could increase flights from roughly 280,000 a year to 389,000 by the late 2030s.
“Campaigners lose High Court challenge to Gatwick expansion but plan to appeal, citing climate concerns.”
Anti-noise group Cagne and campaigner Peter Barclay had told a hearing in January that the scheme was unlawful, arguing the government had failed to properly assess its climate impact. But the judge concluded the expansion would not “materially impact” the government’s ability to meet net zero targets — a decision London Gatwick called a “victory for common sense”.
The Department for Transport and the airport’s owner, Gatwick Airport Limited, had defended the challenge, with lawyers for the site claiming it was “unarguable”.
In a 100-page judgment, Mr Justice Mould also rejected an argument that expansion was unnecessary given Gatwick’s proximity to Heathrow, about 40 miles (64 km) away via the M25. He said the Department for Transport had considered the West Sussex airport primarily a leisure airport, largely served by low-cost carriers, with passenger numbers expected to grow.
“Her conclusions are rational and supported by proper, adequate and intelligible reasons,” the judge said of Alexander’s decision, adding that she had “considered both the need for and the socio-economic effects of the proposed development to be important”.
Travel journalist Simon Calder described the expansion as “the first meaningful airport expansion in decades”. “Certainly for the economy of the Gatwick area, and for travellers in south east England, this is nothing but an overwhelming positive,” he added.
But Cagne — Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions — said it would not accept the ruling “as the final word”. Its legal team will consider an appeal, and the group said it would continue to “stand up for the communities who will be forced to live with the consequences of this expansion”.
Campaigners said communities across Kent, Surrey and Sussex helped fund the legal action because they had “grave and legitimate” concerns, including over infrastructure, sewerage treatment, noise, air quality and emissions. Sally Pavey, from Cagne, had previously said the plans were “not making best use of existing runways”.