Southampton Airport cleared for expansion after appeal thrown out

It marks the end of the legal battle, with The Court of Appeal the final route available to campaigners trying to stop the expansion.

The scheme was approved in April 2021 but campaigners from GOESA (Group Opposing the Expansion of Southampton Airport) claimed permission was "unlawfully granted".

Their pleas for a judicial review were thrown out by a High Court judge in May and now the Court of Appeal has also ruled that there is no grounds to review the decision.

The scheme involves a 164m runway extension, an associated blast screen and the reconfiguration and enlargement of the existing long stay car park to add 600 spaces. The Airport claims it is “absolutely critical to [its] viability as a regional airport” as the current length is not suitable for modern airline fleets.

A Southampton Airport spokesperson said: "As a result, there can be no further challenge to the legality of the borough council's decision on our runway extension - and Southampton Airport can begin to plan for the delivery of the scheme."

A GOESA spokesperson added: "It is a deeply disappointing outcome for the thousands of people who will be adversely affected by the increase in noise and disturbance from the larger noisier planes that Southampton Airport hopes to attract through its expansion plans."

The airport previously said its existing runway was "one of the shortest in the UK" and inhibited the use of larger planes, such as Airbus 320 and Boeing 737.

GOESA argued that the decision to approve the runway extension was unlawful on five grounds:

• The decision was unlawfully made in breach of a legitimate expectation not to issue the planning permission until the secretary of state had fully had time to decide whether or not to call in the application and cause a public local inquiry to be held
• By making no assessment of the cumulative effects of GHG emissions in combination with other projects, the defendant breached its duty under the EIA Regulations, and/or failed to take into account an obviously material consideration
• The defendant misinterpreted the policy at paragraph 11(d) National Planning Policy Framework, leading it unlawfully to apply the “tilted balance” in favour of the grant of permission, but without it making the necessary prior finding that the "most important policies for determining the application" were out of date
• The defendant unlawfully took into account an immaterial consideration, namely that refusing planning permission would lead to the loss of the airport
• The defendant proceeded upon an insufficient evidential basis before concluding that the airport would be operating below its break-even point without expansion

Like what you've read? To receive New Civil Engineer's daily and weekly newsletters click here.