At Gatwick, we believe the economic benefits of airport expansion must be balanced with the impact on the environment. Only Gatwick can offer the new runway the UK needs but at a fraction of the environmental cost of other options.
Air quality is a critical issue in the debate over where the UK’s next runway should be built – indeed, it has been a major factor in the vehement opposition to previous attempts by Heathrow to expand. The issue has now become fundamental to the choice that lies ahead. It is an issue that cannot be ignored.
The area around Heathrow currently breaches legal air quality limits and it defies common sense that a third runway – with hundreds of thousands of extra car journeys that it would bring – is the solution to the problem. Air quality has been a showstopper for Heathrow before and it is now clear that it will be again.
In contrast, Gatwick has never breached legal air quality limits and its location means it can guarantee that it never will. This decision is about the economy and the environment.
Gatwick’s plan is simpler, cheaper, faster and quieter – above all it can actually happen.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Back on the campaign trail
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
Have resignations led to a rethink?
nigel hunter
Tom Reeve
Chloe
Abrial Jerram
9 Comments
Editorial sponsorship by an airport is a specialized meaning of the word “Independent” of which I was not previously aware
You have to admit it, Keith Edkns has a point. 🙂
These sponsored pieces would surely have more meaning if the sponsors interacted with the debate.
Is it really only a choice between Gatwick and Heathrow? Both put great stress on the road network, particularly the M25 of course, but Gatwick is worse for those who live north of London. The issue of air quality is not only of the immediate locality, the transport links make it a much wider consideration. Surely we should be promoting airports that are more central in the UK?
A reminder of our policy on sponsored posts. https://www.libdemvoice.org/sponsored-posts-editors-note-38084.html
I’ve no problem at all with taking sponsored posts.
However I think the text has been almost exactly the same a few times now. Given that we have a party policy for no new net runway capacity in the South East, it’s not enough to say “We’re better than Heathrow”
We need convincing that our party policy is wrong and that we should build runways at all, let alone in the SE.
Would be better if the Gatwick team could engage with us from where we are – rather than this generic message which may work better with groups who are in favour of SE airport expansion already.
I am sure that if the first two posters were willing to put their hands in their pockets with a contribution the LDV team would be pleased to accept. Other than that it is hypocritical to make copious use of the site but expect it to run on no money at all.
I have no objection. The provenance is clearly marked, the issue is topically relevant. This one concentrates on the air quality issues, so a variant on what we have seen before, more generic in tone than in content, so I disagree with tpfkar on that, though he is right that it would be better if there was some acknowledgement that other solutions are available.
My question is about the impact on air quality and transport links wider afield from Gatwick itself. How much extra stress would a new runway at Gatwick put on the M25?
We need to relook at the policy against any development of airports in the SE — the needs of the British economy and the competitiveness of London as an air travel hub demand it.
I have said this before,and will say it again: there is a fourth runway along side Heathrow, which is no more than a well planned rapid transit journey away, and this is the hardly used RAF station at Northolt. This would be,in my humble opinion the least expensive and most convenient of all options, particularly if it was to be used exclusively for all short- haul flights. I cannot believe that the U.K’s security can be at all threatened by its being turned into a civilian facility: so why not openly consider the matter? Maybe it is the nearby presence of a Golf Course that would not go down too well with its members.
Puerile rubbish therefore not worth commenting.