Gatwick: Government and Planning Inspectorate have bent over backwards to keep airport’s plans alive
In scale, cost and complexity, Gatwick’s second runway plan is not in the same league as the saga of Heathrow’s pursuit of a third.
As a test, however, of the government’s commitment to growth, and the tension between planning law, environmental concerns and local objections, it is at the front of the queue, with implications for future infrastructure tussles.
On the face of it, Heidi Alexander’s announcement that she is “minded to approve” the plans to bring its emergency runway into routine use is good news for Gatwick, a signal that it can begin preparing to land a project that’s been in discussion for more than a decade.
Money latest: UK’s favourite DIY shops ranked
It certainly suits the transport secretary and her growth-focused chancellor, Rachel Reeves, for it to be seen as a clear signal of support, proof “this government will stop at nothing to deliver economic growth” in the words of a source, and “a victory for holidaymakers” to boot.
Look more closely at the planning judgments that informed her decision, however, and it is clear she, and the Planning Inspectorate, have bent over backwards to keep Gatwick’s plans alive.
Plan A was rejected
Documents published to coincide with Ms Alexander’s statement reveal that, three months ago, the Planning Inspectorate rejected Gatwick’s proposal on the grounds of noise, transport and pollution.
The airport’s plan, it said, would introduce “moderate levels of harm to matters of greenhouse gas emissions, traffic and transport, and noise, along with a little harm to matters relating to the water environment and health and wellbeing”.
“In this scenario,” the inspectorate said, “the harm that the proposed development would cause would outweigh the benefits and on that basis we recommend refusal”.
Until Thursday, however, it did not tell Gatwick, or the “interested parties” opposed to development, that plan A had been rejected.
‘Unprecedented’ next move
What happened next appears to be unprecedented. The Planning Inspectorate proposed an alternative, tweaked plan, that it would approve, if the airport developer agreed.
Under this alternative planners’ plan B, “harm levels would be reduced in matters of traffic and transport and controlled in relation to noise, the water environment and health and wellbeing”.
“Under this scenario, the benefits of the proposed development would outweigh harm and we recommend approval.”
Presented with an alternative to killing Gatwick’s plan stone dead, or approving it contrary to the Planning Inspectorate’s advice, risking legal challenge, it’s little wonder the transport secretary opted for delay.
Will airport back new terms?
Less clear is whether Gatwick will agree to the new terms. The central sticking points surround noise pollution, specifically when the airport will pay for and provide sound insulation for all the homes affected, and crucially the issue of public transport.
To reduce overall emissions, the Planning Inspectorate’s proposal requires Gatwick to agree to a legally binding target of 54% of passengers arriving on public transport, operating a year before the second runway goes into use.
Currently, that is unacceptable to the airport, which argues it cannot commit £2.2bn to a development subject to conditions beyond its control, and effectively hostage to Network Rail and the train operating companies.
Start of a negotiation?
Chief executive Stewart Wingate told Sky News: “We want to invest £2.2bn in the UK. We want to create these jobs at the airport, in the region 14,000 jobs, and we want to get that boost to the UK economy.
“But to go ahead with that investment, the planning conditions need to be such that we can be certain that we can make use of the runway.”
That sounds like the start of a negotiation in which Gatwick’s owners, infrastructure giants Vinci and Blackrock, will demand a deal they consider investable.
In ordering a nine-month delay, Ms Alexander hopes to have provided the space for a deal to be struck, as well as adequate time for legal challenges to draw the sting from objections.
The outcome will matter far beyond West Sussex and Britain’s second airport.