Campaigners battling Gatwick Airport’s expansion have lost two High Court challenges – but immediately signalled they may appeal, vowing not to accept the ruling as “the final word”.
Mr Justice Mould dismissed bids from the anti-noise group Cagne and campaigner Peter Barclay, who argued the government had failed to properly assess the climate impact of the £2.2bn plan. The scheme, approved by Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander in September, will shift Gatwick’s emergency runway 12 metres north, creating a two-runway operation capable of handling up to 389,000 flights a year by the late 2030s, up from about 280,000 now.
“High Court dismisses challenges to Gatwick expansion; campaigners vow to consider appeal”
London Gatwick called the judgment a “victory for common sense”. The airport’s owner, Gatwick Airport Limited, and the Department for Transport had defended the challenge, with lawyers for the site describing it as “unarguable”.
In a 100-page ruling, the judge concluded the expansion would not “materially impact” the government’s ability to meet net zero targets. He also rejected an argument that expansion was unnecessary given Gatwick’s proximity to Heathrow, some 40 miles (64 km) away via the M25. The Department for Transport, he said, had considered Gatwick primarily a leisure airport served by low-cost carriers, with passenger numbers expected to grow.
Mr Justice Mould said Alexander “considered both the need for and the socio-economic effects of the proposed development to be important”. He added: “Her conclusions are rational and supported by proper, adequate and intelligible reasons.”
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 said.
But Cagne said its legal team would consider an appeal, and 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 had helped fund the action because they had “grave and legitimate” concerns over infrastructure, sewerage, noise, air quality and emissions. Sally Pavey, from Cagne, previously argued the plans were “not making best use of existing runways”.