Gatwick second runway approved - reaction: The arguments for and against the £2.2 billion project

On Sunday, September 21, Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander granted planning permission for the routine use of Gatwick’s Northern Runway, following a six-month examination and years of consultation.

The project is expected to create 14,000 jobs and support an additional 100,000 flights annually by repositioning the Northern Runway 12 metres north to enable dual-runway operations.

The Northern Runway scheme is privately financed and will be delivered within the existing airport boundary, with Gatwick committing to environmental safeguards including stricter noise limits and a 54% sustainable transport mode share. The development is projected to increase passenger capacity to around 75 million by the late 2030s and contribute £1 billion annually to the regional economy.

Ms Alexander said she hoped the runway would operational in the summer of 2029.

The news of the approval has got strong reactions from both objectors and supporters.

Here is a round-up of statements:

For the second runway at London Gatwick

Brett North, Chief Executive of the Gatwick Diamond Initiative, said: “This is a once-in-a-generation moment. We’ve backed this plan from the start because it means jobs, growth and a stronger economy for the whole region. Businesses across the South East will benefit from better connections and more opportunities to trade around the world. After years of global uncertainty, this sends a clear signal that our region is open for business. Investors want to see ambition backed by infrastructure - and that’s exactly what this decision delivers.”

Alun Cornish, Managing Director Ramp and Gateways at FedEx Europe said: "We welcome the Transport Secretary’s support for Gatwick’s expansion, we’ve seen firsthand how vital air cargo is to Britain’s growth - helping businesses in the South East expand overseas and tap into global markets. Air connectivity isn’t just a convenience; it’s the backbone of international trade and economic strength. "We support appropriate airport expansion to deliver economic growth to the UK, but to unlock its full potential, cargo growth must remain a priority alongside passenger flights. Air freight is critical to modern supply chains and Britain’s global standing. Policymakers must act to ensure the UK remains a trading powerhouse. We look forward to what the future holds."

Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, said: “This Government promised to kickstart the economy - and we are. A second runway at Gatwick means thousands of more jobs and billions more in investment for the economy. We are backing the builders, not the blockers. By slashing red tape and transforming the planning system to get Britain building again we are investing in this country’s renewal and building an economy that works for working people.”

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 £2.2bn 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.”

Against the second runway at London Gatwick

Paul Steedman, Director, CPRE Sussex, the Countryside Charity, said: "This is an appalling decision for local residents, the Sussex countryside and the global environment. What is, in practice, a new second runway, will bring more noise, congestion and air pollution to neighbouring communities and to the protected landscapes of the High Weald, Surrey Hills, Kent Downs and the South Downs National Park. The single biggest threat to the countryside is climate change. This expansion will significantly increase greenhouse gas pollution - and the government is just crossing its fingers that unproven and unscalable technologies will magically make the problem go away. Airport expansion won't even deliver the boost to UK growth that the government wants. There has been no net increase in air travel for business purposes or in jobs in air transport since 2007. Recent research from the New Economic Foundation indicates that airport expansion will drive significant tourism revenue abroad, not bring it to the UK. To create the jobs of the future we need investment in low-carbon industries and transport, not more unsustainable expansion of the UK’s airports."

Peter Barclay, Chair of GACC, said: “This is a profoundly irresponsible decision that flies in the face of climate science, environmental evidence, and the interests of local communities. Expanding Gatwick Airport at a time when the UK is legally bound to reduce emissions is a betrayal of future generations. This flawed decision prioritises short-term commercial interests over the long-term environmental and social costs. It will worsen noise pollution, traffic congestion, and carbon emissions — all in an area already under pressure.”

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. The UK's green sector was the fastest growing part of our economy last year. Common sense would see the government championing measures that will both improve our lives and protect the planet if it's serious about sustainable growth, such as upgrading the nation's public transport infrastructure. If we're to meet our legally-binding climate targets, today's decision also makes it much harder for the government to approve expansion at Heathrow."

CAGNE (Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions) said: “Missed opportunity for the government to secure funding for infrastructure from an airport that is gaining a whole new runway virtually for free that will cost taxpayers dearly. CAGNE stands ready with Leigh Day Solicitors to serve a Judicial Review funded by residents and environmental bodies. 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 government seems in such disarray and desperate for short term headlines that they obviously haven't read the planning inspectorate's report carefully that proposed refusal. When the residential roads are sewage flowing and congested traffic reduces the air quality, we hope the government will have deep pockets to bail out local authorities who will have to fund these ramifications."

Siân Berry Green MP for Brighton Pavilion said: “This awful decision is a triumph for lobbying over logic. Despite clear reasons to reject this proposal based on noise, climate change emissions and transport gridlock, the Transport Secretary has decided to side with Gatwick bosses and plough ahead with these reckless plans. The excuses found to blast loopholes through conditions on resident noise and traffic gridlock set out clearly by the Planning Inspectorate earlier this year make a mockery of every hard-working resident group, environmental organisation and local council that engaged in good faith with this process. Undercutting this nonsense, is this Government’s consistent failure to treat the climate emergency with any sense of urgency at all. Far more than extra flights from Gatwick for the richest, most frequent flyers, the public overwhelmingly wants action on climate change, and once again, this Labour Government is not just failing but doing active harm.”