Legal News

The judicial review against the government’s decision to approve the expansion of Gatwick Airport will commence tomorrow in the High Court in London. The case will be heard over 4 days (20-23 January 2026) before Mr Justice Mould.

The proposed expansion of the airport will enable the dual operation of a second runway at Gatwick and facilitate an increase of approximately 13.2 million passengers.

Two claims have been brought against the decision, by Peter Barclay (Chairman of the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) and CAGNE.

The claims challenge the decision on climate change, economic, interpretation of national policy and noise grounds.

Peter Barclay of GACC is represented by Goodenough Ring Solicitors, who have instructed Alex Goodman KC (Landmark Chambers) and Gethin Thomas (39 Essex Chambers).

R (Wellingborough Walks Action Group) v North Northamptonshire Council & Stanton Cross Developments LLP [2024] EWHC 1225 (Admin)

The High Court has confirmed that the tree preservation regime and planning regime must work hand in hand and that developers relying on the planning permission exception to the tree preservation regime do not have free rein.

This is welcome news for environmental campaigners, particularly those in Wellingborough and members of WWAG, some of whom were arrested and cautioned by the Police for protecting the beloved ‘Walks’, an historic boulevard of lime trees.

Dan Kolinsky KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, clarified that, “[t]o the extent that the planning permission can be carried out in a way which does not necessitate the loss of trees, then the exception will not be available”. In other words, the requirement for any felling to be ‘necessary’ to implement a planning permission (regulation 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012), is a strict one.

The judgment also confirms that all relevant planning conditions must be discharged before the exception can be relied upon. This is not only correct in law it is also pragmatic, given that it may assist in determining whether it is indeed ‘reasonably possible’ to save further trees.

This judgment should act as a reminder to local authorities, including NNC, that they have a vital role to play in safeguarding protected trees and must scrutinise closely developers’ claims that trees need to be felled, when in fact it is simply expedient to do so.

While no enforcement has taken place against the developer for the unlawful felling of 16 protected trees, the Court recognised the gravity of the developer’s actions in ordering the Interested Party to contribute to the Claimant’s costs.

The judgment of the High Court is available at: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2024/1225

Alice Goodenough of Goodenough Ring Solicitors acted for WWAG instructing Will Upton KC of Six Pump Court Chambers.

The recent rejection of planning permission, sought by Buccleuch Properties (Kettering) Ltd, for logistics warehouses on a Local Wildlife Site (LWS) north of Kettering demonstrates what a local community can achieve on behalf of their local environment.

Under the umbrella of the Save Weekley Hall Wood (SWHW) campaign and supported by the Local Wildlife Trust, detailed ecological evidence about the environmental significance of the site was gathered by dedicated volunteers over a number of months and presented to the inquiry.

Such evidence would not have otherwise been forthcoming, the Council contesting the application for various reasons but not on ecological or biodiversity grounds. This, despite the fact that the LWS, which is a lowland meadow, a habitat designated as of ‘principal importance’ under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (s.41), would have been almost entirely destroyed as a result of the development. Continue reading