A legal challenge against the expansion of London Luton Airport has come to an end after the Court of Appeal refused to extend the deadline for campaigners to file an appeal.
The case is being closely watched in planning and infrastructure circles because it is one of the first major tests of new government rules designed to speed up court challenges involving nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs).
Community campaign group Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (LADACAN) brought a judicial review against the government’s decision to approve the London Luton Airport expansion.
The airport’s Development Consent Order (DCO), granted in 2025, would allow passenger numbers to rise to 32 million a year.
LADACAN argued that the approval process contained legal errors, particularly around environmental issues. Their claims focused on:
- The assessment of greenhouse gas emissions,
- How climate change laws were applied under the Climate Change Act 2008,
- Whether officials properly considered duties relating to protected landscapes.
In December 2025, the High Court rejected all six grounds of challenge in the case of R (LADACAN) v Secretary of State for Transport.
The appeal did not fail because judges reconsidered the environmental arguments. Instead, it failed because LADACAN missed a new procedural deadline.
Under reforms introduced after the government-commissioned Banner Review, appeals in NSIP judicial review cases must now be filed within seven days of the High Court decision. Previously, parties had 21 days.
The rule changes, introduced in late July 2025 and effective from October that year, were intended to make major infrastructure litigation move more quickly through the courts.
LADACAN filed its application for permission to appeal 16 days after the High Court ruling — more than double the new deadline.
After realising the mistake, the group asked the Court of Appeal for extra time and relief from sanctions.
At a hearing on 19 May 2026, lawyers for LADACAN accepted the delay was serious but argued the court should still hear the appeal because the delay had not caused significant prejudice to other parties, and the proposed appeal grounds were strong enough to justify an extension.
Lawyers for the Secretary of State opposed the request, arguing that allowing the appeal to proceed would undermine the purpose of the new reforms, which were specifically introduced to accelerate NSIP court cases.
After hearing arguments, the Court of Appeal ruled that the extension would not be granted, effectively ending the challenge to the airport expansion.
The decision will be seen as an early sign that courts intend to apply the new NSIP timetable strictly.
Photo: DirkDanielMann
Leave a Reply