Gatwick Runway 2?
BBC News
A draft plan for a possible second runway at Gatwick Airport has been published by airport operator BAA.
The new runway would only go ahead at the West Sussex airport if a planned extra third runway at Heathrow failed to be developed by about 2015.
It would be south of the present runway and would not be built before 2019.
Gatwick was left out of expansion plans originally published in December 2003 but opponents to expansion elsewhere forced the government to consider it.
When the government’s white paper came out in 2003 its proposals for the South East were extra runways at Heathrow and Stansted.
It confirmed the government would honour a legal agreement with the local council which ruled out the building of a second runway at Gatwick before 2019.
West Sussex County Council called for the prospect of a second runway at Gatwick to be completely dropped, but people opposed to expansion at Stansted and Heathrow argued it was wrong for Gatwick not to be considered on the basis of an old agreement.
The High Court ruled in a judicial review the government white paper only considering Stansted and Heathrow had been illegal.
The draft plan published on Tuesday features a second runway 1,130 yards south of the existing one and adds that a third passenger terminal “could and should be located between the runways”.
The plan talks of taking slightly less land to the north of the current airport boundary than had previously been mentioned.
This would reduce the impact of any new runway on the nearby village of Charlwood where opposition to expansion has been particularly vocal.
Gatwick managing director Paul Griffiths said the airport would seek “responsible growth” and any future development would be “sensitive to the local community”.
BAA said work planned for the airport in the next few years would include changes to ensure it could take the new Airbus A380 “superjumbo” and to increase the number of passengers which can be taken through the two existing terminals.
Peter Barclay of the Gatwick Area Conservation Group said a second runway would mean significant extra noise for 20,000 people.
He said: “The new runway is to be built if Heathrow does not meet pollution levels, why should pollution be acceptable at Gatwick if not at Heathrow?”
By: Skymonster - 31st March 2005 at 15:59
Why do they not use 26R/8L?
It is too close to the main runway. It is normally used as a taxiway, but is fully certified as a runway and is used when the main runway 26L/8R is closed due to incident or maintenance.
Andy
By: Skymonster - 31st March 2005 at 15:59
Why do they not use 26R/8L?
It is too close to the main runway. It is normally used as a taxiway, but is fully certified as a runway and is used when the main runway 26L/8R is closed due to incident or maintenance.
Andy
By: EAL_KING - 31st March 2005 at 15:13
it was ment to be a runway but it was too close to the runway in use so its now a taxiway or it could be for smaller a/c aswell like private jets.
By: EAL_KING - 31st March 2005 at 15:13
it was ment to be a runway but it was too close to the runway in use so its now a taxiway or it could be for smaller a/c aswell like private jets.
By: concordesst - 31st March 2005 at 15:03
This may thick/stupid, but i thought LGW already had a second runway (maybe it isnt use) so do you mean a third runway, or a second runway which they will actually use?
Why do they not use 26R/8L?
By: concordesst - 31st March 2005 at 15:03
This may thick/stupid, but i thought LGW already had a second runway (maybe it isnt use) so do you mean a third runway, or a second runway which they will actually use?
Why do they not use 26R/8L?
By: EAL_KING - 31st March 2005 at 14:43
why are people complaining after all they chose to live near an airport and probably use the airport when they go on holiday yet when it comes to helping the airport grow and could possibly reduce buisiness as 2 runways would be in use they complain.
By: EAL_KING - 31st March 2005 at 14:43
why are people complaining after all they chose to live near an airport and probably use the airport when they go on holiday yet when it comes to helping the airport grow and could possibly reduce buisiness as 2 runways would be in use they complain.
By: OneLeft - 30th March 2005 at 22:21
That’s not absolutely true about LGW. For a long time their has been a plan for a potential southern runway to be built on top of the A23 south of the hangars, with the A23 diverted through a gap already left in the industrial estate South of that. Most of the hangars would stay between the runways, and only a few buildings in the industrial estate would have to go. Also there are very few buildings directly off the end of the runway in either direction so noise isn’t quite the issue it could be.
As for NIMBYs a southern runway would bring traffic closer to my house a few miles South-East of the airport, but I have no problem with that. Anything good for the industry, the airport or the area I have settled in is good by me. Don’t think many would agree with me though.
1L.
By: OneLeft - 30th March 2005 at 22:21
That’s not absolutely true about LGW. For a long time their has been a plan for a potential southern runway to be built on top of the A23 south of the hangars, with the A23 diverted through a gap already left in the industrial estate South of that. Most of the hangars would stay between the runways, and only a few buildings in the industrial estate would have to go. Also there are very few buildings directly off the end of the runway in either direction so noise isn’t quite the issue it could be.
As for NIMBYs a southern runway would bring traffic closer to my house a few miles South-East of the airport, but I have no problem with that. Anything good for the industry, the airport or the area I have settled in is good by me. Don’t think many would agree with me though.
1L.
By: robbelc - 30th March 2005 at 21:45
I think LGW is the worse place for a second runway. You have to buld it to the south which means destroying the current maintiance area, catering area and a couple of business parks! Something that would not be easy, and cheap to do.
The LHR runway does involve demolishing a village but is probably cheaper! Stansted being pretty much the same. Why is London the only city to have 5 airports!
By: robbelc - 30th March 2005 at 21:45
I think LGW is the worse place for a second runway. You have to buld it to the south which means destroying the current maintiance area, catering area and a couple of business parks! Something that would not be easy, and cheap to do.
The LHR runway does involve demolishing a village but is probably cheaper! Stansted being pretty much the same. Why is London the only city to have 5 airports!
By: Airline owner - 30th March 2005 at 20:57
There’s also a planned runway for STN isn’t there??
By: Airline owner - 30th March 2005 at 20:57
There’s also a planned runway for STN isn’t there??
By: Bmused55 - 30th March 2005 at 17:24
sniff sniff
Yup I smell the nimby’s approaching
Sign In
March 30, 2005 at 4:36 pm