The Runway Issue

SMALL SITE
Gatwick is a small airport, and is confined by the towns of Horley and Crawley, and by the medieval village of Charlwood, and also by high ground to the west and the main London - Brighton railway line to the east. Charles de Gaulle Airport at Paris is five times as large.

Gatwick has one main runway, and one subsidiary runway which can be used when the main runway is not available. The two runways are too close together to be used simultaneously.

Any new runway is ruled out before August 2019 by a legal agreement between BAA and West Sussex County Council signed in 1979 - see below.

GOVERNMENT POLICY
The statement agreed in May 2010 as the basis for the Coalition Government stated that no new runways will be built at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted.  This policy has been confirmed by the Aviation Minister, Theresa Villiers.  For a full explanation of why a new runway is impracticable see aviation policy (No new runways).
 

WHY A NEW RUNWAY WOULD NOT WORK

Because of the constricted topography at Gatwick, any new runway won't work from an aviation point of view. 

See GACC booklet.  Although this was produced in 2003 nothing has changed.

 _____________________________________________________

STATEMENT BY THE OWNERS OF GATWICK

See Latest News

Sir David Rowlands, Chairman of Gatwick Airport Ltd, has stated that a second runway will not be considered any time in the foreseeable future.   Speaking on 28 January 2010 at the Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee , he said: “The simple fact is that we at Gatwick have not a shred of interest in a second runway.   It’s not government policy and it’s not in our policy.  Even if the Government started to look more favourably at the prospect, we would have to think very hard about spending £100 to £200 million on a planning application with an uncertain decision.  We would have to look even more carefully at the economic value of a multi-billion pound project - would there be a commercial return ?” 

On 26 January 2012, again speaking to the Consultative Committee, Sir David confirmed that GAL have no current plans for a second runway.  Although that might only mean that they are busy preparing plans, in fact Sir David emphasised that no research had been commissioned.

GACC recognises that at some point before 2019, when the legal prohibition runs out, GIP may examine the commercial and political feasibility of a new runway.  We stand ready, if need be, to launch a massive campaign to defeat any new runway plan, as we have defeated such plans in the past.

PREVIOUS POLICY
In the Ar Transport White Paper published in December 2003, the Labour Government announced its decision that two new runways were needed in the South East. The first would be built at Stansted and the second, if pollution levels could be reduced sufficiently to comply with EU legal limits, at Heathrow. The White Paper stated: “The Government will not seek to overturn the 1979 planning agreement preventing the construction of a second runway at Gatwick before 2019. In case the conditions attached to the construction of a third Heathrow runway cannot be met, and since there is a strong case on its own merits for a new wide-spaced runway at Gatwick after 2019, land should be safeguarded for this.”
IMPACT
An additional runway would, according to the 2003 White Paper, be designed to more than double the size of the airport so that it could handle over 80 million passengers a year – more than Heathrow at present.  That would mean twice as many planes in the sky, twice the noise, twice the local pollution, twice the number of airport related cars, and twice the climate change damage. Twice as many airport workers would need twice as many houses.

A so-called ‘wide-spaced’ runway (as shown in the 2003 Air Transport White Paper) would be located only a few hundred yards to the north of Crawley, and would have a severe effect on Langley Green and Ifield. The White Paper stated that around 15,000 extra people would be affected by severe noise. New flight paths would affect Rusper and Horsham, Copthorne and East Grinstead. Up to 300 houses would be demolished including 17 listed buildings. By definition, the pollution would be so serious that it would be unacceptable at Heathrow.

Government documents show that a ‘wide spaced’ runway, as proposed in the White Paper, would require extensive road building and a railway tunnel under East Croydon.

A new runway would also need a new terminal to handle 35-40 million passengers a year i.e. larger than T5 at Heathrow.  As BA have pointed out, there is no space to put such a large building and the necessary aircraft stands between the proposed runways.

ANY NEW RUNWAY WOULD PUT MANY LISTED BUILDINGS AT RISK.  A SELECTION OF PHOTOS IS ON OUR PICTURE GALLERY PAGE

PAST HISTORY
An additional runway has been proposed many times in the past, in 1953, in 1970, in 1985 and in 1993, but has always been found to be impracticable. In July 2002 the Government announced that they had decided that no new runway would be built at Gatwick, and that Gatwick should be excluded from the list of potential sites. This was, however, challenged at judicial review, and the Government produced a revised consultation document in February 2003 including Gatwick runway options. 

PREVIOUS RUNWAY OPTIONS
The 2003 consultation document put forward three options: a close parallel runway 385m south of the existing runway; a wide spaced runway 1035m south; or two new runways, a wide spaced runway to the south plus a new runway to the north of the airport.  To see map of the three runway plan click here.

The physical constraints of the site meant that none of these proposed runway options were practicable.

  • The CAA stated that, because of the wake vortex problem, a close parallel runway would do little to increase airport capacity.

  • The so called ‘wide spaced’ runway would be very close to the town of Crawley, only a mile from the Town Hall, and would cause serious air and ground noise. BA stated that the confined site would seriously reduce airport capacity, and BAA said that the high ground to the west would limit the take-off distance.

  • The proposed northern runway would have pointed straight at the town of Horley. BAA stated that it would require a cutting 10-25 times as large as the notorious cutting at Twyford Down. It would destroy Edolphs Copse, an ancient bluebell woodland owned by the Woodland Trust. It would leave the historic village of Charlwood, with a grade 1 Norman church and over 80 listed buildings, sandwiched between the runways.  The December 2003 White Paper stated that “The Government do not support the northern runway option at Gatwick, and believe that there is a stronger case for the wide-spaced runway than for the close parallel runway.”

THE LEGAL AGREEMENT
The construction of any new runway at Gatwick is ruled out before August 2019 by a legal agreement between BAA and West Sussex County Council. The agreement applies to whoever owns Gatwick, and could only be overturned by legislation which would need to be passed by both Houses of Parliament. The House of Lords might well refuse to pass such a Bill. The legal agreement merely reflects the physical constraints of the site. They will remain when the agreement expires.

WHY WAS IT SIGNED?
In 1979 BAA, then the British Airports Authority, was seeking planning permission to build the North Terminal. They promised (as they did with T5 at Heathrow) that if they got the terminal, they would never go on to ask for a new runway. So West Sussex County Council asked them to put their promise in the form of a legal agreement. BAA were prepared to do so because they were aware that any new runway was ruled out by the constraints of the site.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

RUNWAY OPPOSITION
In response to the 2003 consultation, the runway proposals were carefully debated by many local authorities and voluntary groups. By July 2003, over eighty councils and environmental groups had declared their considered opposition to the runway proposals. They included both Surrey and West Sussex County Councils, and all the District and Borough Councils around the airport. All the local MPs are strongly opposed to the proposed wide spaced runway.

Crawley Borough Council had supported the judicial review in autumn 2002, on the grounds that the merits of a new runway at Gatwick should be discussed. This produced a strong reaction and the formation of an all-party group “One’s Enough”. In June 2003 Crawley Council voted unanimously to oppose any new runway.

WHY A NEW GATWICK RUNWAY WOULD BE BAD ECONOMICS 

In addition to the environmental objections outlined above, there are strong economic arguments against a new runway.

  1. 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 under £3 billion.  Thus the total tax subsidy is around £9 billion a year, an average of £90 for each return flight from the UK.
  2. 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 reduced to 2% a year, instead of 4%, and there would be no need for any new runways.  Further information see Hidden Cost of Flying, pages 19-22. 
  3. 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. 
  4. 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.
  5. The cost of oil is rising, and that is bound to slow down future demand for air travel.  The 2003 Air Transport White Paper, with its plan for two new runways in the South East, was based on the idiotic assumption that the price of aviation fuel would remain at 22p a litre until 2030, would remain still at 22p a litre until 2050, and still at 22p a litre until 2080 (Hansard 5 February 2008) – compare that to the price of petrol at the pumps now.
  6. A new Gatwick runway, designed to double the number of flights, would conflict with the climate change target set in 2010 by the Government, and agreed by the aviation industry, that aviation CO2 emissions should be reduced to the 2005 level by 2050. 
  7. 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.

P R O T E C T I N G   T H E   G A T W I C K   A R E A
Make a Free Website with Yola.