According to legislation.gov.uk, the Gatwick Airport (Northern Runway Project) Development Consent (Correction) Order 2026 was made on 20 January 2026 and came into force on 21 January 2026. It corrects the Gatwick Airport (Northern Runway Project) Development Consent Order 2025, the development consent order that originally came into force on 12 October 2025. (legislation.gov.uk) The instrument states that the Secretary of State received a written request from the applicant within the statutory correction period and notified the relevant local planning authorities before making the order. That sequence matters because Schedule 4 to the Planning Act 2008 allows corrections only through a defined post-decision route, not by informal amendment to the text of a made order. (legislation.gov.uk)
Under section 119 and Schedule 4 of the Planning Act 2008, a ‘correctable error’ is an error or omission in the part of the decision document that records the decision, rather than in the statement of reasons. The Secretary of State may correct that type of defect only if the statutory conditions are met, including the written request or formal statement process and notification to relevant planning authorities. (legislation.gov.uk) On that basis, the Gatwick instrument reads as a legal housekeeping exercise rather than a reopening of the planning merits of the Northern Runway project. That is an inference drawn from the narrow correction power in Schedule 4 and from the contents of the correction schedule itself. (legislation.gov.uk)
The schedule to the correction order is wider than a single drafting slip. Legislation.gov.uk shows changes to definitions, article cross-references, highway wording, compulsory purchase provisions, protective provisions for utilities and railway interests, and the list of documents to be certified. Examples include correcting ‘Schedule 14’ to ‘Schedule 12’, changing ‘principle’ to ‘principal’, repairing wording in articles 32 and 33, and adding a certified ‘noise insulation scheme document’ to Schedule 12. (legislation.gov.uk) For practitioners, that breadth is the main point. Even where many amendments are plainly textual, a long DCO depends on accurate cross-references and internally consistent drafting if approvals, land powers and protective provisions are to operate as intended. This second point is an inference from the structure of the corrected order. (legislation.gov.uk)
The most legally significant insertion appears to be new article 29A, headed ‘Power to override easements and other rights’. It authorises activity within the Order limits notwithstanding interference with easements or certain contractual restrictions on land use, while preserving compensation under sections 7 and 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and keeping liability enforceable against the undertaker if a person deriving title fails to pay. (legislation.gov.uk) At the same time, the correction order removes paragraphs (2) and (3) from article 29, renumbers the surviving text, and amends protective provisions so that article 29A is recognised in the regimes covering National Highways and railway interests. In practical terms, that is likely to sharpen the relationship between compulsory acquisition powers, private rights and third-party protections within the DCO code. The final sentence is an inference from the corrected text. (legislation.gov.uk)
The order also revises the noise and mitigation drafting. The correction schedule removes misplaced definitions such as ‘eligible premises’ and ‘potentially eligible premises’ from the general interpretation section in Schedule 2, inserts a definition of ‘highway works’, and makes a further series of corrections to requirement 18 on receptor-based noise mitigation, including terminology around eligible residential premises and insulation. (legislation.gov.uk) For local authorities and affected residents, those points are not cosmetic. The noise scheme depends on exact thresholds, categories of premises and certified supporting documents, and the same correction order adds the ‘noise insulation scheme document’ to the list of certified documents in Schedule 12. A DCO can only be implemented smoothly if that wording matches across the instrument. The final sentence is an inference from the corrected provisions. (legislation.gov.uk)
Correction orders of this kind are routine but important within the Planning Act 2008 system. Schedule 4 requires a formal request or statement, notice to relevant planning authorities, and a written correction notice; the mechanism exists because development consent orders are long and technical instruments, and drafting defects can affect land powers, approvals and enforcement. (legislation.gov.uk) For promoters of major infrastructure, the Gatwick example is a reminder that the legal work does not stop when consent is granted. Post-decision checking of cross-references, compensation clauses, protective provisions and certified documents remains part of delivery risk management. That reading is an inference from the scope of the amendments made here. (legislation.gov.uk)
One further point is visible on the public record. The legislation.gov.uk 2026 index lists the correction order as No. 1055, while the accessible correction text is headed 2026 No. 43 and records the order as having been made on 20 January 2026. (legislation.gov.uk) Even leaving publication mechanics to one side, the broader signal is clear. Once a DCO moves from decision to implementation, accuracy in the statutory text becomes a project issue in its own right. For readers tracking the Gatwick Northern Runway scheme, this order is best understood as legal repair work with real delivery consequences, not as a fresh decision on the underlying airport expansion proposal. The final sentence is an inference from the statutory correction power and the contents of the schedule. (legislation.gov.uk)