Gatwick Airport's Second Runway Expansion Clears Final Legal Hurdle
Court of Appeal rejects campaigners' challenge, allowing project expected to create 14,000 jobs and boost economy by £1 billion.
A long-standing legal battle over the expansion of Gatwick Airport has concluded, with appeal judges dismissing a final challenge, clearing the way for the construction of a second runway. The decision allows the project, valued at £2.2 billion, to proceed, with expectations of creating approximately 14,000 jobs and injecting £1 billion into the UK economy.
The Court of Appeal's ruling ends an eight-year legal process initiated by campaigners who had contested the expansion plans. The airport anticipates that the new runway will facilitate an additional 100,000 flights annually from the West Sussex hub, which is the UK's second-busiest airport. This expansion is projected to accommodate around 13 million more passengers each year, offering greater travel choices and enhancing global connectivity.
Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander stated that the expansion represents a significant milestone, unlocking investment and job creation. She also highlighted the government's commitment to supporting growth while addressing climate goals, noting an investment of over £219 million in green fuel production to reduce aviation emissions.
The airport's chief executive, Pierre-Hugues Schmit, acknowledged the extensive scrutiny the plans have undergone and expressed readiness to move into the design and delivery phases of the project. The development involves relocating the runway's emergency take-off strip approximately 12 meters to the north, a move the airport claims will cause minimal disruption to ongoing operations.
Community groups, including Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions (Cagne), had brought the legal action against the Department for Transport, arguing that the climate impact of the scheme was not adequately assessed. However, previous rulings at the High Court found that the government's approval was neither illogical nor contradictory, even considering potential impacts on carbon reduction targets.
The Court of Appeal judges, in their ruling, found the grounds of appeal to be unarguable and stated that neither appeal had a realistic prospect of success, nor were there compelling reasons for the appeals to be heard.