Background
Planning permission for a northern runway at Gatwick Airport was granted in 1979, but its simultaneous use with the main runway was prohibited by condition and by an agreement with West Sussex County Council that expired in 2019. By 2019 Gatwick was handling more than 46 million passengers per annum. Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) sought a Development Consent Order (DCO) under the Planning Act 2008 to enable dual-runway operations by repositioning the existing northern runway 12 metres to the north, lifting the longstanding use restrictions, and delivering substantial airfield, terminal, hotel, car-parking, highways and surface-access works. The application was accepted for examination in August 2023 and examined over six months to August 2024.
The Examining Authority (ExA) recommended refusal of the draft DCO submitted by GAL, concluding that moderate harm to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, traffic, noise and the water environment outweighed the project’s benefits. However, the ExA simultaneously recommended an alternative DCO with extensive planning controls; on that basis it concluded benefits outweighed harm and recommended approval. The Secretary of State for Transport (SST) issued a minded-to-decide letter in February 2025 indicating agreement with the alternative-DCO recommendation and inviting further representations. On 21 September 2025 the SST granted development consent, making the Gatwick Airport (Northern Runway Project) Development Consent Order 2025 in terms that further amended the ExA’s recommended alternative DCO.
Two claimants challenged the grant. Peter Barclay, a local resident and Chair of the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC), advanced five grounds attacking the SST’s treatment of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), the statutory scheme under the Planning Act 2008, the EIA Regulations, the need and economic-benefits assessment, and noise policy. Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions (CAGNE) advanced six grounds directed at the SST’s approach to GHG emissions (including international inbound flights and non-CO₂ effects), the Jet Zero Strategy, the treatment of noise impacts in the planning balance, and an allegedly unlawful DCO requirement for wastewater treatment works. Mr Justice Mould heard both claims together as a rolled-up permission-and-merits hearing over four days in January 2026, with judgment handed down on 23 June 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Mould applied the established principles governing judicial review of development consent decisions: policy interpretation is for the court, but planning judgment and the weight assigned to material considerations fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the decision-maker and are reviewable only on Wednesbury grounds. Decision letters must be read fairly and as a whole, addressed to informed parties, without excessive legalism. The SST was required to decide the application in accordance with section 104 of the Planning Act 2008—that is, in accordance with the ANPS—unless one of the exceptions in subsections (4)–(8) applied, including where adverse impacts outweigh benefits. The court also applied the EIA Regulations’ requirements that the SST examine all environmental information, reach a reasoned conclusion on significant effects, and integrate that conclusion into the decision.
On the climate-change grounds, the court engaged with the statutory scheme under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Court of Appeal’s analysis in R (Global Feedback Ltd) v Secretary of State for EFRA [2024] 1 WLR 2923, which confirmed that the duty to prepare proposals and policies for meeting carbon budgets under section 13 of the CCA belongs to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero as a coherent “total package,” rather than to sector-specific ministers such as the SST. The court evaluated whether the SST’s treatment of GHG emissions from the proposed additional flight movements—including the contested question of how to handle emissions from international inbound flights and non-CO₂ warming effects under Schedule 4 to the EIA Regulations—met the legal requirements of a reasoned conclusion under regulation 21. The eleven grounds were considered in full on the merits; the judgment sets out the court’s conclusions on each in turn.
(Note: the approved judgment text provided for this summary was truncated before the dispositive section. The specific outcome on each ground—and the overall disposition of the two claims—is not reproduced above. Readers should consult the full text at [2026] EWHC 1556 (Admin) for the court’s conclusions.)
Key Takeaways
- The SST’s decision to grant a DCO for dual-runway operations at Gatwick was subjected to one of the most comprehensive judicial reviews of a nationally significant infrastructure project in recent years, spanning EIA compliance, climate policy, aviation noise, and the planning balance.
- The court confirmed that responsibility for preparing proposals to meet carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act 2008 rests with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, not with sector ministers—a constraint that shapes how transport-sector DCOs can engage with net-zero obligations.
- The case illustrates the tension between the Planning Act 2008’s presumption in favour of development that accords with a relevant NPS (here, the ANPS) and the multiple grounds on which that presumption can be displaced, including EIA deficiencies and adverse-impact findings.
- The ExA’s unusual dual recommendation—refusing GAL’s draft DCO but approving an alternative DCO of the ExA’s own construction—raised important procedural fairness questions about consultation and the proper limits of an examining authority’s role.
Why It Matters
Gatwick’s Northern Runway Project is the first major airport capacity expansion in the South East to reach the DCO stage since the Heathrow third-runway debate. The case raises enduring questions about how the UK’s climate commitments interact with infrastructure consenting: specifically, whether and how the GHG impacts of additional flights—particularly from international routes and non-CO₂ effects—must be assessed and weighed under the EIA Regulations, and how the Jet Zero Strategy functions as a material consideration in planning decisions.
The judgment is also significant for infrastructure practitioners because it tests the procedural limits of the Development Consent Order process: whether an examining authority can recommend an alternative DCO not fully shared with the applicant; how a minded-to-decide letter must be structured to remain within the rules; and how noise impacts must be reflected in the formal planning balance. The answers will shape practice before the Planning Inspectorate for large aviation and transport NSIPs for years to come.