We have analysed the environmental effects in terms of land and properties affected, air noise, ground noise, air quality, ecology, water, heritage, landscape and visual impacts.
Existing air quality in the area close to the airport is generally good. Our current performance, which we commit to maintain, is zero breaches of air quality limits.
Our modelling confirms that development of a second runway at Gatwick would maintain air quality conditions at levels significantly within all national and EU mandatory standards.
We will work closely with heritage authorities on how we should deal with listed buildings which would be affected, including exploring options to incorporate buildings within the
development options, or to relocate them to new sites.
We are working in partnership with NATS to replace the existing aircraft approach and departure routes for the single runway airport. We continue to work closely with both the CAA and NATS to ensure that the potential capacity of Gatwick’s runway is matched by an equivalent capacity in the local airspace.
Option 1 has the lowest overall land take of the three options. It requires 388ha of land.
Option 2 requires 573ha of land additional to the existing airport.
Option 3 requires 577ha of land additional to the existing airport.
The land take figures include an allowance for necessary road and river diversions.
No nationally designated landscapes would be directly affected by any of the potential runway development options for a two runway airport.
The closest sites of international importance for nature conservation are the Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment Special Area of Conservation and Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area.
We do not expect any effects on any of these sites from any of the options. We will work
closely with Natural England and other authorities to avoid, reduce, and where necessary
compensate for loss of other habitats.
All options lead to the loss of some areas of land within the two runway airport boundary that currently provide flood storage during extreme rainfall. We therefore need to provide compensatory flood storage at least equivalent to the volume of flood storage that would be lost to the development.
Where the new perimeter is next to green space we believe that landscaping and planting would be appropriate, and as this matures it would reduce visibility of the airfield. Where we think planting would be insufficient, or we think that further measures would be needed to reduce ground noise, we have identified locations for mounds to screen the airfield. These are called acoustic bunds.
We would keep the existing acoustic bund to the northwest of the airport and the existing noise wall to the north of the airport.
A linear park could be created south of the airport which could include footpaths overlooking the proposed river diversion from Crawter’s Brook to the River Mole.