Commenting on yesterday’s Heathrow expansion news and the legal/regulatory path ahead, Andrew Sanderson, Transport partner at law firm Kingsley Napley LLP, has issued a comprehensive response.
“The government’s decision to back the Heathrow Airport third-runway proposal, including the rerouting of the M25 motorway, marks a major milestone for UK infrastructure. Yet from a legal and regulatory standpoint the path ahead remains both complex and contested.
“First, by choosing the scheme promoted by Heathrow Airport Ltd (HAL) as the basis for updating the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS), ministers have triggered a statutory review and consultation process, a necessary precondition before any development consent or planning permission can be granted. That means the expansion is not a fait accompli: there remains a material window for interested parties, local authorities, environmental bodies, community groups, to engage in consultation and to scrutinise the evidential and regulatory underpinning of the proposals.
“Second, the legal framework under the Planning Act 2008 (which governs nationally significant infrastructure projects) allows for challenge by way of judicial review once the new ANPS is adopted and a Development Consent Order (DCO) application is submitted. In past judicial reviews of airport expansion, such as the 2019 challenge to the then-existing ANPS, courts have examined issues ranging from procedural fairness to substantive compliance with environmental and human-rights duties. Given the scale of the proposed works, re-routing a major motorway, compulsory land acquisition and demolition of homes, there is a realistic prospect of challenge. Especially if objectors argue that the cumulative environmental and community impacts have not been properly addressed, or that the balance struck fails the tests of proportionality or public interest in a new legal and constitutional context.
“Third, the government has already signalled an intent to streamline the consenting process and reduce delays: under the current proposals associated with the overhaul of the ANPS and other legislation, reportedly part of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the time for judicial review of National Policy Statements and nationally significant infrastructure projects may be halved. That raises fundamental questions for the rule of law, public participation and environmental accountability. If expedited parliamentary or administrative reform diminishes the scope for proper judicial oversight, there is a real risk that dissenting communities and environmental stakeholders will find their legitimate concerns sidelined.
“Finally, the wider context matters. This decision is not simply about a runway, it is enmeshed in a broader push for a coherent, integrated UK transport-infrastructure and connectivity strategy. But legal and regulatory credibility must underpin any such strategy. If the expansion proceeds without robust assessment of impacts, or if future challenges are restricted, the public’s trust in planning and transport governance could be eroded, potentially undermining future integrated plans for road, rail, aviation and local transport.
“In short, the government has opened a door, but it is not guaranteed the expansion will stand. For HAL, this is a big win; for communities and environmental interests, there remains a crucial opportunity, and possibly an obligation, to test whether the plan is lawful, proportionate and consistent with the UK’s long-term climate and environmental commitments.”
(Picture: Kingsley Napier LLC)
