Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport

In environmental impact assessment, only likely significant environmental effects must be described and assessed. Whether an effect is significant, and whether available information permits a meaningful assessment, are evaluative judgments for the decision-maker, subject to ordinary public law review.

Inbound aviation emissions may be excluded from quantitative contextualisation where national benchmarks calculate outbound emissions only and combined figures cannot meaningfully be compared with those benchmarks. Non-CO₂ aviation effects may be assessed qualitatively where scientific uncertainty and the absence of a recognised benchmark make quantification inappropriate.

Planning decision-makers may rely on national climate-control regimes, including the Climate Change Act 2008 and emissions trading schemes, without duplicating those regimes. A previous examining authority’s recommendation on another airport was not an obviously material consideration requiring consideration.

The claimant sought judicial review under section 118(1) of the Planning Act 2008 of the Secretary of State’s decision to grant a development consent order for the expansion of London Luton Airport.

Five grounds were considered. They concerned the treatment of inbound flight emissions, the relevance of the Gatwick Airport examination, non-CO₂ emissions, reliance on the national climate-control regime, and reasons for compliance with the statutory duty concerning the Chilterns National Landscape. The claim also included a stayed challenge to the Jet Zero Strategy, which was not determined.

The central issues were whether the Secretary of State had unlawfully limited the environmental impact assessment or failed to take material considerations into account, and whether adequate reasons had been given for compliance with the protected-landscape duty.

1. Grounds 1 and 3 dismissed. Regulations 5(2), 14 and 21 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 require identification, description and assessment of likely significant direct and indirect effects. Effects that are not significant need not be assessed as part of the EIA and may instead be considered in the planning balance.
2. Applying Finch, the court held that evidence must support a reasoned conclusion that an effect is likely and capable of meaningful assessment. That criterion applies both to causation and to the nature and extent of assessment. Significance is a value judgment, and different decision-makers may rationally reach different conclusions.
3. The Secretary of State lawfully accepted that inbound emissions were likely effects and had been quantified, but that no meaningful comparison could be made with benchmarks based on outbound flights. She was entitled to conclude, in the alternative, that the additional inbound emissions were not significant, particularly because the existing emissions were assessed as minor adverse and not significant and the combined figure remained substantially below 1%. The EIA process had included publication, consultation and examination of the relevant information.
4. Non-CO₂ effects were not excluded. They were described and considered qualitatively. Given significant scientific uncertainty, the absence of scientific consensus on a multiplier and the lack of a relevant benchmark, the decision-maker was not legally required to quantify them. The approach was consistent with Bristol Airport.
5. Ground 2 dismissed. The Gatwick examining authority’s report was a recommendation concerning a different and substantially larger project. It had no status as a decision and was rejected by the Secretary of State in the Gatwick proceedings. There was no legal basis for treating it as a mandatory material consideration. Its reasoning was also internally inconsistent in comparing inbound emissions with carbon budgets that excluded them.
6. Ground 4 dismissed. The Secretary of State was entitled to treat the climate-control regime under the Climate Change Act 2008, including emissions trading schemes, as a regime whose proper operation could be assumed. Finch did not displace that principle.
7. Ground 5 dismissed. The reasons concerning section 85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 were adequate and intelligible. The Secretary of State considered the competing evidence, selected a reasonable and proportionate financial contribution, and secured its use for the statutory purposes.
8. The claim for judicial review was dismissed on Grounds 1 to 5. It was unnecessary to determine the applications under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

First-instance judicial review. The judgment states that permission had been granted on Grounds 1 to 5 and Ground 6 had been stayed pending determination of separate litigation concerning the Jet Zero Strategy. No appellate decision in this claim was stated.