The beauty spots at risk if Heathrow and Gatwick get new runways

After decades of false starts, furious protests and bold promises, it appears that the Labour government is prepared to throw its support behind new runways at London’s two biggest airports.

This week it was widely reported that Rachel Reeves is poised to give her backing for both a third runway at Heathrow and a second runway at Gatwick, as well as significant expansion of Luton Airport.

The move has been pre-emptively described as “disgraceful” by environmental campaigners, while airport bosses say expansion would “unlock capacity” in the capital and bring an economic boost for the whole country.

Even if the Chancellor does give this three-way airport expansion her backing, it seems certain that nothing will happen quickly. After all, Reeves was still in primary school when the Civil Aviation Authority first published a report on a new runway in the south east, back in July 1990. But a lot is at stake here, including our holidays, homes and health.

The impact on holidaymakers

London already has more flights and passengers than any other city in the world. But its airports have changed little since the Second World War: Gatwick is the busiest single-runway airport in the world, and Heathrow is the busiest two-runway airport.

Because these airports operate at capacity, the tiniest air traffic blip or IT hiccup can have a big knock-on effect on an entire day’s schedule. So in very simple terms, a second runway at Gatwick and a third at Heathrow would mean more landing slots, more space to play with, greater flexibility and quicker recovery times in the event of a slip-up.

On-time performance would, presumably, improve as a result, and there would be fewer cancellations. Residents of the south-east would have many more flight options to choose from, too.

Gatwick’s expansion would increase its maximum annual capacity from 46.5m passengers to 75m by the late 2030s, with around 100,000 more flight movements per year. Heathrow would rise from a peak annual passenger count of 80.9m (achieved in 2019) to as much as 140m, bringing up to 250,000 additional aircraft movements per year.

Luton’s expansion would increase capacity from 18m passengers to 32m per year and would bring a new terminal, too. All three airports would need to improve their public transport systems to handle the growth of passenger numbers, of course. Quicker, better trains and bigger, slicker car parks, one would hope.

In theory, in the scenario where all of the above goes ahead, we could be looking at 400,000 more flights taking off and landing in the capital per year. In very simplistic terms, more supply should equate to more competitive prices. Another runway at Heathrow could also relieve the intense demand for limited landing slots, currently among the most expensive in the world – this could also push down fares.

So, to run a very broad brush across what will be an extraordinarily complex process, with countless unknowns, a best-case scenario for the holidaymaker would be less time on the runway, more time by the pool, and a bit more spare change to spend on your margaritas.

The villages and beauty spots at risk

But at what cost? Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions (CAGNE) describes the idea of government support for a second runway as “disgraceful”, and argues that villages including Lingfield (Surrey), Penshurst (Kent) and Rusper (West Sussex) could be negatively affected by increased overflights brought about by a second runway. Hever Castle, the childhood home of Anne Boleyn, and Ashdown Forest are among the nearby beauty spots that could also be impacted by a rise in air traffic.

In Luton, local groups fear that Wigmore Valley Park could be lost if the airport undergoes expansion. At Heathrow, previous proposals have suggested that the entirety of Longford, a medieval village north of the airport, could be demolished, while residents of Sipson and Harmondsworth could also face eviction.

A spokesperson for Stop Heathrow Expansion also pointed to Harsmondsworth Moor and Cranford Park as significant biodiverse areas that are threatened by the proposed runway.

Taking a wider view on the proposals, environmental groups have long pushed back against the suggested new runways. Doug Parr, policy director at Greenpeace UK, said: “The economic benefits are dubious at best while the environmental costs in climate damage, noise and air pollution are certain.”

History suggests this could all be wasted energy, but then again Labour’s support for a 40 per cent growth of London City Airport last August suggests otherwise. Heathrow told The Telegraph it was “looking at potential options to deliver a third runway at Heathrow in line with strict tests on carbon, noise and air quality” and Gatwick described its northern runway as “shovel-ready” with the potential to create 14,000 jobs and drive £1bn of economic benefits per year, with a view to minimise the noise and environmental impacts of expansion.

So here are the dates for your calendar: Reeves is expected to say something next week, a government ruling on Gatwick is expected on February 27, a decision on Luton is expected on April 3, and Heathrow bosses have requested clarity this year.

I suggest we regroup by the pool this summer to see where we’re at, and then maybe pencil in another catch-up in 2034.