Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander published a letter of approval on Sunday, September 21, saying the plans were a ‘no brainer’. Her approval letter, published on Sunday and running to 107 pages, stated: “There remains a nationally recognised need for aviation development, particularly in the south of England.”
The plans will see 100,000 more flights at Gatwick, creating around 14,000 jobs and and inject £1billion into the region's economy every year.
It could also could help unlock £275m a year for the Sussex visitor economy, as the region looks to attract more high-value international tourists.
Stewart Wingate, VINCI Airports’ managing director for United Kingdom and former Gatwick CEO, said: “After a lengthy and rigorous planning process, we welcome the Government's approval of plans to bring our Northern Runway into routine use, ahead of the expected deadline.
“This is another important gateway in the planning process for this £2.2billion investment, which is fully funded by our shareholders and will unlock significant growth, tourism and trade benefits for London Gatwick and the UK and create thousands of jobs.
“As we’ve said previously, it is essential that any planning conditions enable us to realise the full benefits of the project and do not impose unnecessary constraints that make it uneconomic to invest in.
“We now need to carefully examine the details of the planning consent. Once we have done that, we will be able to comment further.”
Uckfield MP Mims Davies said there were ‘positives and negatives’ to the news but stressed she was unimpressed with the Government’s handling of their announcement.
She said: “The Secretary of State for Transport in this Labour Government, on Sunday 21st September approved the second runway plan at Gatwick Airport. This was released to the press and I first heard, like many, via social media which was very disappointing, completely inappropriate and not the correct process. “This announcement was made over parliamentary recess, denying MPs the opportunity to debate and share concerns from constituents, and an email was sent only informing MPs the day after I flagged this. This is greatly insulting to constituents whose lives will be affected and have raised concerns regarding aircraft noise, air pollution, and climate change targets. This decision means Gatwick could be used for an additional 100,000 flights a year with annual passenger numbers rising from 45 million-75 million. “There are both positives and negatives to this news, this local airport is a key employer and important economic driver which will bring in countless jobs for residents, and I’ve always been clear as a local MP that Gatwick must be a good neighbour and strive to work with local communities. To that end, I had regular meetings with Gatwick’s leadership team to share constituent’s concerns around this process, including connectivity, lack of bus and rail links and road capacity.”
The plans have also faced major opposition from campaign groups.
CAGNE, the umbrella aviation community and environment group for Sussex, Surrey and Kent, said: “As this is a new runway by the back door, offering little compensation for some and nothing for the majority of residents whose homes will be devalued as will areas of outstanding natural beauty and places of historic importance. As the only guarantee Gatwick has offered is that instead of one runway starting up at 6.30am until 11.30pm at night there will be two, so double the noise over rural areas.
“We will now carefully read the announcements by the Secretary of State and consult our legal team, but this is not over for Gatwick or the government.”
Rosie Downes, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth, said: "With emissions from aviation rising as climate extremes increasingly batter the planet with more intense floods, droughts and wildfires, it's a struggle to see how the government can conclude expansion at Gatwick is a wise move.
"The Secretary of State says a second runway is a "no-brainer" for the economy, but the economic case for airport expansion is massively overstated. Any growth in air passengers leaving the country is likely to mean more UK tourists using their spending power overseas than anything we might gain from visitors.”