Passenger numbers could double

The plan - which includes the possibility of two new runways - would see passenger numbers at the West Sussex airport rocket from 32 million a year to 115 million.

Gatwick Airport was originally left out of government plans to increase air travel, because of an agreement banning expansion until 2019 between operator BAA and the local council.

But officials in Kent and Essex, where new airports or runways are also proposed, won a High Court legal battle to force the government to consider extending Gatwick.

Other options include just one new runway parallel to the existing one - taking passenger numbers to 60 million - or a single parallel new runway 1km to the south, boosting numbers to 80 million.

The two-new-runways option would mean the destruction of 430 homes, as well as listed buildings, a conservation area and hundreds of acres of agricultural and green belt land.

'Environmental disaster'

People living near Gatwick, which already handles around 30 million passengers a year, say they are furious it may be expanded further.

Brendon Sewill, chairman of the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign, said: "Any new runway, doubling the present size of Gatwick, would be an environmental disaster for Surrey, Sussex and the west of Kent."

Mr Sewill said nobody in the area wanted to see "double the number of aircraft, double the noise, double the number of flight paths, double the pollution and double the road traffic".

He said the airport's expansion would also mean thousands of new homes to accommodate workers - a project which would lead to the destruction of "vast areas of countryside".

Breeding area

Transport secretary Alastair Darling originally announced which schemes were being considered to increase runway capacity in the south of England last summer, but Gatwick was not among them.

Gatwick serves London and the South East

But a High Court judgement overturned that agreement and Mr Darling said Gatwick now had to be included in the expansion proposals, although the government is still under no obligation to expand it.

"The other options remain exactly the same - the only difference is we've included Gatwick," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

He added later: "Air transport is critical to the future success of the economy. Reaching the right decisions on air capacity is essential."

Among the other proposals are a new �9bn airport at Cliffe, in north Kent - a plan which angered many locals and wildlife groups, who say the area is a vital breeding area for birds.

There were more protests from people living close to Stansted airport in Essex, where three new runways could be built.

The Stop Stansted Expansion residents' group is angry that the revised consultation document excluded private companies' proposals for offshore airports in the Thames and Severn estuaries.

They vowed on Thursday to take fresh legal advice on challenging the government's "failure to consult the public on the option".

Final decision

The new consultation said that with no new runway or terminal development at Gatwick, the capacity might increase to 46.5 million passengers a year with greater use of larger planes and more intensive use in off-peak hours.

Two options for new building close to the existing one would see a full-length runway parallel to the existing one and 385 metres, or alternatively 1,035 metres, south of it.

The two-new-runway option would see a new northern full-length runway 2,900 metres from the existing one, on which planes would fly only to and from the west to avoid overflying the town of Horley.

The second new runway would accommodate planes to and from the east and would be 1,035 metres south of the existing one.

One option is that the first of the two new runways could open in 2011, the second in 2018 or both would open together in 2024.

A proposal for two new runways would quadruple capacity to 115 million passengers a year and create 58,000 new jobs.

A final decision on which schemes will go ahead is expected from Mr Darling in an aviation White Paper later this year.

What is your reaction? Use the postform below.

Your comments:

If the United Kingdom is not to be left behind in increased global competition and trade, it must do everything possible to make itself as competitive as possible at the least possible cost, if expanding Gatwick will make the UK more favourable for investors, I am all for it, because to me, the basic reason for trying to expand Gatwick is for economic reasons, which will invariably have an overall effect on the British economy.
Oladele Adams, Nigeria

I live under the flight path and am furious that this decision has been made. The pollution will reach unacceptable levels and the little wild life that is left in the area will made extinct. I am totally against any new runways at Gatwick.
Brian Micetich, England

I work at Gatwick as cabin crew and see the expansion here as a good idea. To add a extra runway and to upgrade the shabby south terminal would cause minimal impact to local people, although some houses may have to be demolished which is unfortunate. I believe most people in the area are in agreement with the expansion as many of them work at the airport,
Those that moan about the airport should never have moved to the area in the first place, as most of the houses in the surrounding new town of Crawley, and of the older town of Horley where built after the airport was opened. Without the airport these towns would not exist in there present form.
Andrew Laverick, UK

There is already a severe problem with housing, this expansion would only increase it Karen Evans, UK

I feel that demolishing 300 houses to make room for an expansion of the airport is a disgrace so soon after the government released plans to build more homes in the South due to a lack of housing. It would create more jobs but where are the people taking these jobs going to live? There is already a severe problem with housing, this expansion would only increase it. Driving conditions in the area are almost impossible now, has this area been looked at sufficiently, if not I feel this has to be taken into consideration.
Karen Evans Cert.CIH, UK

The government consultation document has been useful in highlighting the problems associated with allowing unfettered growth of aviation. The views of Swampy and his mates are suddenly being listened to rather more seriously than they were when Manchester's second runway was being built. In essence the environmental argument highlights the hypocrisy of applying heavy taxation to automobile fuel while refusing to apply any taxation whatsoever to aviation.
Taxation is being applied to reduce fossil fuel emissions to try to ensure that the UK meets its obligations under the Kyoto Treaty. Unfortunately, it would seem that the government is not responsive to the public mood, and ministers seem determined to press ahead with plans for massive expansions. The government should explain, how these expansion plans are consistent with the Treaty it has signed.
Pete Binding, UK

I live and fly out of Stansted. The media only cover the locals who object to the expansion plans. It is my experience that the majority of local people are actually in favour of expansion. The presence of the airport has secured tens of thousands of jobs and fuelled locals house values enormously. I would like to see the local reaction if Stansted Airport was threatened with closure. There would be mass hysteria is my bet.
Andrew Jones, UK

If the UK wants to remain a serious economic force then expansion of our existing southeast airports is essential and therefore inevitable. LHR and to a lesser extent LGW have enabled London (and therefore the UK) to remain Europe's main financial centre and travel hub. The expansion of both these airports will upset and inconvenience a few thousand people, but the whole country will reap the benefits.
Perry, UK

Disclaimer: The BBC may edit your comments and cannot guarantee that all emails will be published.