Gatwick Expansion Approved

The government has approved plans for a huge increase in flights at Gatwick Airport.

The Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander has agreed that a second runway can be built to boost flights from 280,000 a year to around 390,000 flights a year by the late 2030s.

The Chancellor Rachel Reeves dismissed climate concerns, telling reporters: "People going on holiday will have a greater choice of destinations. It will mean lower costs for a family holiday."

Rachel Reeves also set aside the potential hit to economic activity in the UK arising from greater spending by UK tourists overseas, continuing: "It will also mean more good jobs paying decent wages through this injection of cash into our economy. We said as a government we would back the builders and not the blockers - and that is exactly what we are doing with this announcement."

The Conservative MP for Tonbridge, Tom Tugendhat, reacted on Monday morning calling the announcement "hugely disappointing."

The former Green Party parliamentary candidate for Tonbridge, Anna Cope, spelled out her party's outright opposition to the expansion of Gatwick. She said the UK economy would benefit much more from investment in public transport like affordable rail travel to make UK holidays more popular.

Listen to Anna Cope here:

This is the full statement from the Conservative MP for Tonbridge, Tom Tugendhat:

“For our corner of Kent, confirmation of the second runway at Gatwick Airport being approved will be hugely disappointing. Whilst we bear the brunt of the environmental impact given the flightpaths above Tonbridge, Edenbridge and surrounding villages, we don’t see the economic benefits.

"If this expansion were a motorway on the ground, it would never be approved. Yet the Labour Government have decided a motorway in the sky is acceptable, without accounting for the value of the local landscape.

"Kent doesn’t feel the benefits of this expansion, and the Government have still not committed to reinstating direct rail services between our county and Gatwick when there is a case for this even without any expansion. The runway should not be operational without this.

"I will closely monitor the information the Government release about their decision and continue to work with all our local campaign groups, who have put so much into the campaign for well over 10 years.

"Labour’s policy states that future growth in aviation should ensure benefits are shared between the aviation industry and local communities. This isn’t the case at Gatwick.”

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrat MP for Tunbridge Wells, Mike Martin said:

“Many residents in Tunbridge Wells, who experience significant nighttime disturbances from aircraft, will be frustrated by today’s announcement, particularly as the full impact of this expansion on the health of our communities has not been properly assessed”. 

“I am glad to see that the Government listened to the concerns I put to them and have taken steps to implement stricter noise controls. There is also a real opportunity to improve airport transport infrastructure to and from Tunbridge Wells. I will continue pushing the Department for Transport and Gatwick airport to secure the best possible deal for residents”.

Gatwick Airport says its plans to boost passenger numbers to 80 million a year will create new local jobs and boost the local economy.

Opponents have pointed out that noise levels will increase in Kent and Sussex, while economists point out that making it cheaper and easier for UK citizens to holiday abroad could well be a further drain on the UK economy by moving spending overseas. 

In 2024, £46 billion left the country due to more UK tourists going abroad than foreign tourists coming to the UK. It is a deficit that reduces the size of UK output.

Three times as many people leave the country on holiday as come here to spend money. Around half of people in the UK fly at least once a year.

The Conservative Shadow transport secretary Richard Holden welcomed the decision as "a vital step towards driving economic growth" and he said approval should have been made months ago.

Green Party leader Zack Polanski said approval of the expansion plan was a "disaster for the climate crisis". He continued: "Anyone who's been paying any attention to this shambles of a Labour Govenrment knows they don't care about people in poverty, don't care about nature nor for the planet. Just big business & their own interests."

The Liberal Democrat MP for Horsham in Sussex, John Milne, said he was "troubled" by the decision as he could not see how expansion at Gatwick, Heathrow and Luton was compatible with climate change commitments.

A government source told the BBC that Gatwick's plans were a "no-brainer for growth," adding that "it is possible that planes could be taking off from a new full runway at Gatwick before the next general election."

The decision to approve the expansion plan had been expected in February, but it was delayed when planning inspectors objected to the increased traffic and noise from the expansion.

The group called Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions (CAGNE) said: "We know this government cares little for the environmental impact aviation is having on our planet and Gatwick’s neighbours, but not to demand that Gatwick pays for the infrastructure, the onsite wastewater treatment plant, and noise impact is unlawful in our book." 

The expansion involves converting the current stand-by Northern runway into regular use by moving it 12 metres further away from the main runway.

In April, Gatwick Airport agreed to stricter noise controls, an enhanced insulation scheme for nearby residents, and having 54% of air passengers using public transport to get to the airport before the Northern Runway opened.

To achieve this target, the airport said the authorities would need to "support delivery of the necessary conditions and improvements required to meet this target." This seems to involve the government paying for a doubling of trains on Gatwick Express and also paying for £350m of road improvements.

The costs of moving the runway and rebuilding terminal facilities is put at £2.2 billion and will be privately financed.

Reaction on social media from residents on the Kent-Sussex border has been negative so far. Sara in Rotherfield said: "Bad decision. Noise levels for everyone on the flight path is increasing. Night and day. Some nights difficult to sleep. Ear plugs! Environmentally a disaster."

Clive in the St James area of Tunbridge Wells said: "Another disastrous decision. Double the planes, environmental catastrophe. It's got to stop."