Abstract
This note, forthcoming in the Journal of Environmental Law (2021), considers the recent (16 Dec 2020) decision of the UK Supreme Court in respect of the planned expansion of Heathrow airport. The Court rejected the contention of the eNGO applicant, Plan B, that the decision maker acted unlawfully in granting permission for a new third runway. The note is part of a series of comments on the case - the others from the perspectives of planning and administrative law. The approach herein is from the perspective of climate law, and in particular constitutional principle. It argues that the Supreme Court was correct to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal, in a manner consistent with the political constitution. In so doing the Court handed back the decision on the third runway to an expert limb of public administration (the Planning Inspectorate) established by statute (Planning Act 2008), rather than letting the matter be settled by a court.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
