R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) (Respondents) v Heathrow Airport Ltd (Appellant)

This appeal concerns the framework which will govern an application for the grant of development consent for the construction of a third runway at Heathrow Airport. The airport is operated by Heathrow Airport Ltd (HAL), which is the appellant. Objectors to the proposed development are the respondents, Friends of the Earth (FoE) and Plan B Earth. The objectors commenced claims against the Secretary of State for Transport (the Secretary of State) to challenge the lawfulness of the designation of an Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) under the Planning Act 2008 (the PA 2008). The respondents' claims were dismissed in the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal allowed appeals by FoE and Plan B Earth. The court granted declaratory relief stating that the ANPS is of no legal effect and that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in failing to take into account the Paris Agreement in making his decision to designate the ANPS. The Court of Appeal set out four grounds for its decision. The first was that the Secretary of State breached his duty under section 5(8) of the PA 2008 to give an explanation of how the policy set out in the ANPS took account of Government policy, which was committed to implementing the emissions reductions targets in the Paris Agreement. The second was that the Secretary of State breached his duty under section 10 of the PA 2008, when promulgating the ANPS, to have regard to the desirability of mitigating and adapting to climate change, in that he failed to have proper regard to the Paris Agreement. The third was that the Secretary of State breached his duty under article 5 of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive to issue a suitable environmental report for the purposes of public consultation on the proposed ANPS, in that he failed to refer to the Paris Agreement. The fourth was that the Secretary of State breached his duty under section 10 of the PA 2008, when promulgating the ANPS, in that he failed to have proper regard to (a) the desirability of mitigating climate change in the period after 2050 and (b) the desirability of mitigating climate change by restricting emissions of non-CO₂ impacts of aviation, in particular nitrous oxide. HAL appeals to the Supreme Court with permission granted by the court. The Supreme Court held that HAL succeeds on each of the grounds (i) to (iv) of its appeal. The court held that it was not reasonably arguable that the Secretary of State acted irrationally in not addressing the effect of the non-CO₂ emissions in the ANPS. The court would allow the appeal.