The Runway Issue
The Case against a second Gatwick runway Restated
A briefing note setting out the case against a second runway as sent to all 650 MPs in October 2016. Read briefing note.
Lies and half-truths
An open letter sent by Gatwick Airport to all MPs before the runway decision was examined by GACC. Read lies and half-truths.
Runway infrastructure costs misleading
The promise by Gatwick to pay all the costs of new roads and rail improvement is extremely misleading. See GACC letter to the Secretary of State for Transport.
Infrastructure Studies criticised
A study showing the amount of new infrastructure required by 2050 if second Gatwick runway is built has been severely criticised by GACC. See note for councillors.
GACC has published a booklet setting out the case against a second runway at Gatwick, and has sent it to all Members of Parliament. The main facts are -
- Small economic benefit
- In-migration of population
- Worsening north-south divide
- Urbanisation of countryside
- Noise - three times as bad
- Road and rail chaos
- Severe environmental damage
Another booklet - The Great British Runway Myth, published by the Aviation Environment Federation with support from GACC - sets out why no new runway is needed.
- larger aircraft
- fewer empty seats
- decline in business travel
- no increase in number of flights over past 14 years
- demand inflated by no fuel tax or VAT
- only way to limit climate change damage is not to build new runways.
GACC response to the Airports Commission consultation.
A comprehensive, carefully argued, semi-academic analysis of why a second runway at Gatwick would be an environmental disaster, and where the Airports Commission has got it wrong.
EasyJet opposes a new Gatwick runway
easyJet, the biggest airline at Gatwick, support a new runway at Heathrow, and demolish the case for a second runway at Gatwick. Their full response to the Airports Commission here.
Gatwick claimed to have 'Community support' but that claim lies in tatters. Several of the councils listed on the right started by being attracted to the idea of a new runway, but the more councillors studied the probable impact, the more they changed their minds. All the brash advertising by Gatwick cut no ice compared to the real facts.
All MPs oppose runway
All the Members of Parliament around Gatwick opposed a second runway. The following declared their opposition –
Crispin Blunt Reigate
Sir Paul Beresford Mole Valley
Nus Ghani Wealden
Sam Gyimah East Surrey
Nick Herbert Arundel
Jeremy Quin Horsham
Henry Smith Crawley
Sir Nicholas Soames
Tom Tugendat Tonbridge
Lord (Francis) Maude
All the MPs (except Sam Gyimah who is not able to join because he is a Minister) are members of the Gatwick Co-ordination Group, united in their determination to oppose a second runway
West Sussex County Council has voted 37 : 26 to switch from support in principle to opposition.
Kent County Council previously supported a second runway, now opposes it.
Surrey County Council opposes a new runway unless the necessary infrastructure is first provided.
Crawley Borough Council has voted 25 :11 to oppose a second runway.
Horsham District Council voted 23 : 1 to oppose.
Mid Sussex District Council opposes second runway.
Mole Valley District Council unanimously oppose.
Sevenoaks District Council has decided to oppose.
Tandridge District Council has responded reiterating their core strategy to oppose a new runway.
Tunbridge Wells District Council has voted 39:1 to oppose second runway.
Horley Town Council and East Grinstead Town Council have voted to oppose. So have virtually all the 50 or more parish councils around Gatwick.
East Sussex County Council voted 27 : 19 to support a second runway.
Reigate and Banstead Borough has taken a firm decision not to take a decision.
Who would Pay?
Since each airport is now a separate company the people who would pay for a new runway would be the passengers using that airport. See research study by GACC chairman.
The Airports Commission in their final report suggested that a new runway would mean putting up charges at Gatwick from the current £9 per passenger to between £15 and £23.
Gatwick Airport promised not to raise airport charges above £15 for thirty years. This would have made it difficult for Gatwick to raise the funds to pay for the new runway.
See press release.
Previous Government policy
The Conservative manifesto in May 2010 stated that no new runways would be built at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted. This was agreed as the policy of the Coalition Government.
The Airports Commission, chairman Sir Howard Davies (right), was set up in 2012 to study whether there is a need for a new hub airport, and to recommend suitable sites. They recommended a new runway at Heathrow although adding that Gatwick was a 'credible' alternative.__________________________________________________
GACC says no need for a new runway.
GACC says that, because of the trend to larger aircraft, and because of unused capacity at Stansted there is no need for any new runway in the South East. But if a new runway were to be built at Gatwick it would soon fill up, attracting airlines from other parts of the UK, making the over-crowding of the South East worse. See submission to the Airports Commission.
Warning ! Flight paths for a new runway
The Airports Commission published maps showing the possible positions of new flight paths if a new runway were to be built. It is emphasised that these are only indicative. What the map does show is that at full capacity there would be twice as many aircraft on most flight paths. Plus new routes over Warnham and over Copthorne, plus a new route to the east of Horsham.
See NATS Airspace Report page 39.
A new town the size of Crawley
30,000 - 45,000 new houses would be needed if a new runway were to be built at Gatwick. That was the conclusion of a study by independent consultants jointly commissioned by the West Sussex County Council and the Gatwick Diamond Initiative. The total number of houses in Crawley at present is around 40,000.
Read press release.
GACC has pointed out to the Airports Commission that their Discussion Document on Aviation Noise has a serious omission. It does not recognise that, because of the lower background noise, aircraft noise in rural areas can cause more annoyance than noise in urban areas. Thus the assertion by Gatwick Airport that far fewer people would be annoyed by a new runway at Gatwick than at Heathrow may exaggerate the situation.
See also research study on Ambient Noise.
Serious pollution risk
GACC's response to the Airport commission's consultation on Air Quality pointed out that the Commission was seriously underestimating the pollution risks of a second runway.
Wildlife and landscape experts oppose new runway
Dr Tony Whitbread, Chief Executive of the Sussex Wildlife Trust warns that the idea of a second runway at Gatwick Airport is a great worry to the Trust. Gatwick Airport at present has a huge ecological impact and adding an extra runway will make this worse. Read his blog.
Woodland Trust joins campaign against new runway
The Woodland Trust with 250,000 members and supporters has weighed in against the plans for a new Gatwick runway. Three areas of ancient woodland would be destroyed. See Say No to ancient woodland loss at Gatwick.
Why a second runway would be bad for business.
A paper published by GACC suggests that a second runway would be bad news for many of the 30,000 local businesses. That is because it would create labour shortages, higher costs and traffic congestion. Read paper.
See also a paper by a former senior manager for Royal Mail - Impact on Labour Market.
THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION
GACC worked closely with the Airports Commission and submitted a number of papers to them including -
Airport Operational Models describes why Gatwick would be unlikely to succeed as a hub, and warns of the risk of building a 'castle in the air' - with examples of runways around the world which are unused.
Making best use of existing runways. GACC suggests higher tax on full runways so as to match supply and demand.
Dodgy forecasts. GACC suggests that the forecasts of ever-increasing air travel may not be reliable.
Runway consultation results
The results of the Gatwick Airport runway consultation in April-May 2014 were contained in an independent report by Ipsos Mori. The number of responses in favour of each option was as follows:
Option 1 (Close parallel) 194
Option 2 (Segregated mode) 167
Option 3. (Mixed mode) 733
None of these options 6,200
This result was so embarrassing for Gatwick Airport Ltd that they have done all they can to conceal it. They did not mention it to the airport consultative committee or to the press. In their report to the Airports Commission it only appears in a pie chart on page 50, nowhere in the text.
The proposal for a high speed rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick attracted much attention in 2011. It has been rubbished by many airlines, and by both Heathrow and Gatwick airports -
- if deep-bored, it would be vastly expensive for little benefit
- if not deep-bored it would do huge environmental damage
- it would not be straight, and thus it is doubtful if it could do the journey in 15 minutes as claimed
- no account of time to walk to and from stations, and to wait for train
- double immigration and customs
- no recognition of disadvantages of a second runway at Gatwick.
In addition to the environmental objections outlined above, there are strong economic arguments against a new runway.
- The main reason why air travel has expanded so fast in recent years is that it receives huge tax concessions - no fuel tax, no VAT, duty free sales. These far exceed the air passenger duty. Based on Treasury figures, the absence of fuel duty and VAT results in a loss of revenue of around £12 billion a year, while APD brings in around £3 billion. Thus the total tax subsidy is around £9 billion a year, an average of £90 for each return flight from the UK.
- In 2003 the Department for Transport computer model showed that if air travel was taxed at the same rate as car travel the rate of growth of air travel would be halved, and there would be no need for any new runways. Further information see Hidden Cost of Flying, pages 19-22.
- GACC is not opposed to air travel but believes it should in theory pay the same rate of tax as other industries, and be subject to the same climate change restraints as other industries.
- There are practical reasons why it is difficult for one country alone to impose tax on aviation fuel, or to impose VAT on airline tickets. But it would be bad economics to build new infrastructure to meet a level of demand which is artificially inflated.
- A new Gatwick runway, designed to double the number of flights, would conflict with the climate change target set in 2010 by the Government, that aviation CO2 emissions should be reduced to the 2005 level by 2050 - unless growth were to be constrained at regional airports.
- The economy of the region surrounding Gatwick is already too reliant on the airport and far from exacerbating that risk there is a need for diversification, particularly into activities supporting a low carbon economy.
Tangled Wings: Gatwick seen through green-tinted glasses by Brendon Sewill, chairman of GACC, was published in 2012. It tells the story of Gatwick as seen from the nearby village of Charlwood, and how proposals for a second runway were defeated in 1970, in 1993, and in 2003.
Full of of fascinating facts, such as that Winston Churchill was unhappy about the process for choosing the location of Gatwick with no space for a second runway
Details and how to order here. Price now reduced to £5 (plus postage)
P R O T E C T I N G T H E G A T W I C K A R E A