New row over runway

Those for the proposals say they make economic sense, those against say any runway expansion would spell ecological doom.

Details of the proposals were released in a consultation document by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling yesterday.

It was a revised document that included three options for Gatwick - all of which are angering locals who live in the shadow of the airport.

Option one is for a second runway to run parallel to the existing strip to the south of the airfield on land known as Lowfield Heath.

Option two is for a second runway to be built to the south of the existing strip but spaced much further apart.

This will encompass land to the North of County Oak.

The third option, which is drawing most opposition, is for two additional runways; the widely-spaced runway to the south at County Oak and a second built to the north of the existing strip on land bordering Charlwood and the west of Hookwood.

The revision to the original document came after Kent County Council successfully obtained a High Court ruling that Gatwick ought to have been included in the first draft.

That ruling, obtained last November, was not opposed by the Government, which yesterday included the Gatwick options alongside proposals for Heathrow, Stanstead, Luton and other South-East airports, including a new airport at Cliffe.

The proposals have all been fully appraised by the South-East and East of England Air Services body (SERAS), which outlined the impact of the plans on the local environment and people.

The Government made it clear houses would have to be demolished and the M23 and A23 would have to be widened.

However, SERAS said it would bring thousands of jobs to the area and secure a sound economic future for the South-East.

Much of the debate reflects the fact that Gatwick is the world's busiest single runway.

The airport owners hope it will grow and become more profitable - like any other business.

Owners of the hotels, guesthouses, petrol stations and restaurants that make a living from Gatwick also want to see it expand.

BAA plc, which owns and runs Gatwick, praised Alistair Darling and his consultation paper.

Roger Cato, managing director at Gatwick, said: "The issue of extra runway capacity in the South-East is one of great importance in the region and the revised consultation gives everyone the opportunity to express their views on Gatwick's future.

"Some local residents will naturally be concerned at the prospect of major development and the environmental consequences that come with expansion.

"Equally, the region's business community feels long-term expansion at Gatwick is essential to maintain economic welfare.

"BAA recognises the importance of its legal agreement with West Sussex County Council, which prevents the building of a second runway before 2019. We have no intention of suggesting the agreement should be rescinded.

"Looking to the future, we want the government White Paper to identify a clear policy for Gatwick, identifying its future role within the region's airport system."

Mr Cato urged all interested parties to study the proposals carefully before making up their minds.

However, some people have already made up their minds.

Gary Whitworth is the spokesman for the Gatwick Area Conservation Committee, a body formed to present a united front of opposition to any expansion.

He said: "This announcement is the worst possible news and spells double trouble for the people that live near the airport.

"Some mornings locals open their windows and breath in pure jet fuel.

"We simply could not cope with double the air traffic, double the cars on local roads and double the amount of workers who would need to be housed locally.

"However, I am confident that the 2019 legal agreement will be adhered to. No local politician will be foolish enough to abandon it with elections so close."

Mr Whitworth believed it would be the two-runway option that eventually gets the green light.

He said: "The Government will go for two runways, we will protest and they will make a U-turn and go for just one new runway.

"That way it looks as if the protesters will have won. But we won't have. We will all be losers."

Surrey MP Peter Ainsworth described the proposals as a nightmare scenario and pointed out a two-runway option at Gatwick would make it twice the size of Heathrow.

He said: "By its own admission, the Government's two new runway option would involve the destruction of 430 homes, including 18 Grade 2* buildings; the loss of vast tracts of greenfield and green-belt land; the diversion or culverting of "several rivers"; and increased air pollution and noise affecting thousands of people.

"The wider implications for new housing and essential services like local roads, schools and hospitals would be massive.

"It is hard to imagine a prospect more damaging to the local environment or quality of life."

West Sussex County Council described the proposals as a disaster for the county.

Lieutenant Colonel Tex Pemberton, the Cabinet member for strategic environmental services, said: "I am appalled the announcement shows the Government is actually considering overriding the legal agreement.

"If the Government can ride roughshod over such agreements, what confidence could anyone have in any legal contracts in the future?

"The anxiety of the local communities that the Government wanted to avoid when they took the decision to leave Gatwick out, has just been restored by this announcement."

Crawley Council said it was considering its position and urged local people to make their feelings known.

The Government has now extended the consultation period until June 30 and all parties will be asked to make their submissions by then.