High Court Rejects Challenge to Gatwick Expansion Approval

Campaigners seeking to block Gatwick Airport's plans to bring its Northern Runway into routine use have suffered a setback after the High Court dismissed a legal challenge against the government's approval of the scheme.

In a judgment handed down on 23 June, Justice Mould rejected judicial review claims brought against the Department for Transport's decision to approve the £2.2bn expansion project, clearing another significant hurdle for one of the UK's largest aviation infrastructure schemes.

The challenge was brought by Peter Barclay, Chair of the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign, alongside campaign group Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions (Cagne), who argued that ministers had failed to properly assess the environmental consequences of the development, particularly its impact on climate change objectives.

However, the court found in favour of the Department for Transport and Gatwick Airport Limited, allowing the Development Consent Order (DCO) approval to stand.

The ruling marks the latest chapter in a long-running debate over the future growth of the UK's second-busiest airport and its role in meeting future aviation demand.

Gatwick's proposals centre on the transformation of its existing Northern Runway, which is currently used only as a standby facility and for maintenance purposes. Under the plans, the runway would be repositioned by 12 metres to meet international safety requirements, enabling it to be used alongside the main runway for routine operations involving smaller departing aircraft.

The project is intended to support the airport's long-term ambition of increasing annual passenger numbers to around 80 million.

Beyond runway works, the development includes a package of associated infrastructure improvements, including taxiway modifications, terminal expansions, new highway infrastructure and a range of environmental mitigation measures.

The scheme received a significant boost earlier this year when Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander indicated she was minded to approve the application, subject to additional information being provided by the airport operator.

Following the submission of further details and subsequent review by the Department for Transport, formal approval was granted in September 2025.

Campaigners argued that the approval process failed to adequately account for the wider environmental consequences of airport expansion, particularly the implications for the UK's legally binding climate commitments.

Cagne had previously raised concerns that revisions submitted by Gatwick following the examination process reduced opportunities for scrutiny of issues including aircraft noise, surface transport provision and environmental impacts.

Lawyers representing both the government and Gatwick Airport maintained throughout proceedings that the decision-making process had been lawful and robust, arguing that the legal challenge lacked merit.

The High Court's decision is likely to be welcomed by the aviation sector, which has increasingly argued that additional airport capacity will be required to support economic growth, international connectivity and passenger demand in the coming decades.

For opponents of the project, however, the ruling represents another setback in efforts to challenge airport expansion through the courts, although campaigners may still consider whether further legal avenues remain available.

The judgment also highlights the continuing tension between infrastructure growth ambitions and environmental objectives, a balancing act that remains central to major transport planning decisions across the UK.

With legal uncertainty reduced, attention is now expected to shift back to delivery of the scheme and how Gatwick intends to manage the environmental, transport and operational challenges associated with expanding airport capacity while meeting increasingly demanding sustainability expectations.

The project remains one of the most significant aviation infrastructure developments currently progressing through the UK's planning system and will continue to be closely watched by both supporters and critics as it moves towards implementation.