The recent Court of Appeal decision in the ‘Heathrow’ case, Plan B Earth v Secretary of State for Transport is an illustration of the challenges of reviewing polycentric and expert decision‐making. The issues raised in the case concerning the Planning Act 2008 are an illustration of a court's expository role in such contexts. The Court tackled directly a series of interpretive questions concerning the Planning Act 2008's obligations regarding the consideration of climate change. The Habitats and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive issues raised in the appeal, in contrast, were presented with the question of the intensity of review foregrounded in legal argument. The Court therefore sought to articulate the ‘standard of review’ and to apply it to the government's decisions. This way of framing the issue unfortunately sidelined the courts’ expository role in relation to intepreting the Habitats and SEA Directives, leaving key provisions under‐analysed.

中文翻译：

---

“希思罗”案：多中心性，立法和审查标准

最近上诉法院在“希思罗机场”案中的裁决，Plan B Earth诉运输国务卿说明了审查多中心决策和专家决策的挑战。与《 2008年规划法》有关的案件中提出的问题说明了法院在这种情况下的说明性作用。法院直接解决了有关《 2008年规划法》在考虑气候变化方面的义务的一系列解释性问题。相比之下，在上诉中提出的人居与战略环境评估（SEA）指令问题与法律论证中提出的审查强度有关。因此，法院试图阐明“审查标准”，并将其应用于政府的裁决。不幸的是，通过这种方式来界定问题的方式使法院在解释人居和SEA指令方面的说明性角色显得格格不入，