The government says growth is top priority. It is one of Labour’s five missions. The chancellor refers to it incessantly. The OBR note that every 0.1% extra growth reduces tax rises by close to £10bn. The Prime Minister says, “Build, baby build”. And yet, and yet, and yet…
London Gatwick wants to expand. It is currently the world’s busiest one runway airport. The business case is open and shut.
The engineering case is straightforward. Moving the reserve runway 12m north (closer to the terminals) allows it and the current runway to be used simultaneously. Laying a runway on already level ground, and adding some short taxiways really is engineering child’s play.
The cost is only £2.2bn, to be entirely paid by the private sector.
The case has been strong for years. In 2009 the House of Commons Transport Select Committee called for a second Gatwick runway. In 2012, Gatwick’s chief executive argued for it, wanting it open in the mid-2020s.
In May 2020 the Civil Aviation Authority said that it safe, and required no air space reorientation.
The airport submitted their Development Consent Order application on 6 July 2023. Because this is Britain, and we have a pathological belief that planning issues should take forever, it took a month for the Planning Inspectorate to accept the application. Again, because this is Britain, the detailed inspection was scheduled not to end in February 2024, but to begin in February 2024, six months after Gatwick applied for permission.
To be fair - and when am I anything else? - the Planning Inspectorate got on with it, and said yes on 27 August 2024, subject to conditions that Gatwick accepted.
All that was needed was the Secretary of State’s signature. Because this is Britain, that was expected to take another six months.
But it didn’t happen. Instead, in February 2025 the Secretary of State, Heidi Alexander, said that she was “minded to approve” it. Not a yes, not a no, just more thoughts and conditions, which Gatwick accepted.
Almost a year from her own officials recommending “yes”, the Secretary of State has still to decide.
I have worked for many ministers, good, bad and indifferent. The good ones are those who understand that their primary role is to decide. Not to think, not to do, but to decide. This comes easily for some, but not for all. Some avoid major decisions by immersing themselves in minor issues. Some avoid it by claiming the need to build consensus. Believe me, Greenpeace and the New Economics Foundation will never support expanding Gatwick. Others avoid making decisions because they disagree with the Prime Minister, and unwilling to be open about it. Perhaps Alexander actually opposes Gatwick’s expansion, and is delaying in the hope of finding an excuse to say no.
I don’t know which category she falls into. I do know that the Prime Minister has been clear: the aim is growth, and one of the routes to growth is to build. She stands in practical opposition to her Prime Minister. I have two policy recommendations, which should be seen as alternatives…