Runway Issue

Small Site. Gatwick is a very 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.

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 (not to be confused with 2001 legal agreement mentioned above).

Government Decision. In the White Paper published in December 2003, the 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." Further information

Progress Report The Government published its Progress Report on the Air Transport White Paper on December 2006. Progress Report.

The Progress Report confirms that no new runway can be built at Gatwick before 2019, but that the option of a wide-spaced runway after that date should be kept open in case the environmental conditions for a new runway at Heathrow cannot be met.

The plan for a new runway at Stansted is already several years behind schedule, and the runway is not now expected to open before 2015. A Public Inquiry has been held into BAA's planning application to increase the limit on the number of passengers at Stansted from 25 million to 35 million a year. BAA has submitted an application for a second runway and an inquiry will be held.

For Heathrow the Progress Report stresses the economic importance of another runway, and suggests that the third runway (and sixth terminal) should be built 'as soon as it is possible to meet the stringent environmental limits set in the White Paper. A Government consultation into increasing the use of the existing runways and the possibility of a third runway ended in March 2008, and the Government has postponed a decision until December 2008.

The Government's determination to press ahead with airport expansion has been widely condemned as in conflict with its climate change policies. For example, senior politicians from all Parties (including Shadow Environment Secretary, Peter Ainsworth MP) and the directors of all the main UK environmental organisations have written to the Times to deplore the government's policy. Letter.

Gatwick Scores Poorly. The exclusion of Gatwick was not solely due to the legal agreement. The results of the three year SERAS study showed that a Gatwick runway scored badly both on environmental and economic issues. As the White Paper said, the Government "have concluded that the case for a runway at Gatwick is not as strong as for the options at Stansted and (subject to meeting the critical conditions) Heathrow."

Impact of the Potential Runway. A wide-spaced runway (as shown in the Air Transport White Paper) would be located close 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.

A 'wide spaced' runway, as proposed in the White Paper, would be designed to enable Gatwick to handle 83 million passengers a year, compared to 35 million at present. This would require extensive road building, a railway tunnel under East Croydon and massive new housing for extra workers. Plans for the proposed new runway were published by BAA in their Gatwick Airport Interim Master Plan. See above.

It would also require a new terminal to handle 35-40 million passengers a year ie larger than T5 at Heathrow. There is no space to put such a large building and the necessary aircraft stands between the runways as shown on the plan.

BAA have suggested (in the Interim Master Plan) that the timing might be:

2011 evaluate options for site of new runway
2014 planning application
2019 start construction
2023 or early 2024 open runway

GACC believes that plans for a new runway and a huge new terminal, designed to enable Gatwick to handle 80 million passengers a year, are totally contrary to the need to limit climate change damage, and will never be implemented. See also Competition Commission on Latest News page.

Previous decisions. An additional runway has been proposed many times in the past, in 1953, in 1970 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 before 2030, and that Gatwick should be excluded from the consultation on 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 2002 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.

The physical constraints of the site mean that none of these proposed runway options would be practicable.

The CAA have 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 have stated that the confined site would seriously reduce airport capacity, and BAA have said that the high ground to the west would limit the take-off distance.

The proposed northern runway would point straight at the town of Horley. BAA have 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. For further information click here

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 physical constraints of the site.

Why should a runway be ruled out by 'a bit of paper'? The runway is ruled out by the physical constraints of the site (see above). The legal agreement merely reflects these constraints. They will remain when the agreement expires.

Runway Opposition. In response to the 2003 consultation, the runway proposals were carefully considered and debated by many local authorities and voluntary groups. By July 2003, over eighty councils and environmental groups had declared their 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 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 the Council voted unanimously to oppose any new runway.

Taxation. The main reason why air travel is expanding so fast is that it receives huge tax concessions - no fuel tax, no VAT, duty free sales. These far exceed the air passenger duty. The total annual tax subsidy is around £9 billion.

Taxing aviation fuel at the same rate as petrol for cars, and putting VAT on airline tickets, according to the DfT computer model, would mean that no new runways would be required in the UK. Further information click here

The Future. Concern about climate change is mounting. So is the realisation that aviation is the industry with the fastest growing contribution to climate change. So is concern about the dangers of air traffic congestion. So is the realisation that the growth in aviation is largely due to the huge tax concessions it receives. The rise in the cost of oil is forcing many airlines to cut the number of flights. It therefore seems unlikely that any new runway will be built, let alone two.