Sir Howard Davies has written to the Transport Secretary strongly rebutting Gatwick Airport’s criticisms of the Airports Commission’s report.
Following the publication in July of Sir Howard Davies’ Airports Commission report, which made an unequivocal and unanimous recommendation for a third runway at Heathrow Airport, Gatwick Airport Ltd has attempted to question the analysis and recommendations of the report.
Sir Howard has written to refute Gatwick’s claims on the relative economic benefits, regional connectivity, deliverability, and air and noise impacts between Gatwick and Heathrow.
Crispin Blunt MP, chair of the Gatwick Coordination Group of MPs opposed to a second runway at Gatwick Airport, has lambasted Gatwick Airport for continuing to campaign for expansion despite the resounding rejection of their plans by local communities and the Airports Commission.
Crispin Blunt said: “Sir Howard Davies has demolished Gatwick’s arguments, which amount to a feeble public relations effort to undermine the credibility of the Airports Commission’s work and recommendations. As Sir Howard says, Gatwick has misunderstood and misrepresented the Commission’s analysis.
“The Airports Commission confirms again that Heathrow delivers the greatest economic benefits for the UK, over £50 billion more than Gatwick over 60 years. The Government’s decision on airport capacity must be taken in the national interest, to enhance national and international connectivity and deliver more jobs and growth across the UK. The Airports Commission shows Heathrow, not Gatwick, can do this.”
The letter from Sir Howard Davies to Patrick McLoughlin covers seven categories of Gatwick’s criticisms:
• Traffic forecasts - The Airports Commission sought independent expert advice, which was unequivocal, to ensure the robustness of their forecasts.
• Regional connectivity - Gatwick’s argument “misunderstands and misrepresents the Commission’s analysis”.
• Economic benefits - Contrary to GAL’s assertions, the direct economic benefits of expansion at Gatwick and Heathrow are not ‘virtually the same’. In both the ‘carbon traded’ and ‘carbon capped’ forecasts, the net social benefits of a new north west runway at Heathrow are roughly two-thirds higher than those of a second runway at Gatwick”.
• Costs and charges - Gatwick’s argument is “entirely misguided” and does “nothing to alter the underlying commercial fundamentals of the project”.
• Deliverability and financing - The Commission is confident that new capacity can be delivered at Heathrow by 2030 and that Gatwick’s comparison of the level of spend required is “over-simplistic”.
• Air Quality - The Commission’s air quality analysis was carried out by leading experts; “limited weight should be placed on the suggestion that air quality represents a significant obstacle to expansion”.
• Noise – Sir Howard describes as “nonsense” the suggestion that they ignored Gatwick’s lower noise impacts and reiterate that the population for whom noise levels would reduce as a result of redesigned flight paths made possible by Heathrow expansion could be “well over 200,000 people”.
The letter can be read here.