Gatwick second runway approved as residents warn of upheaval and price drops

The government on Thursday gave formal approval to Gatwick Airport’s plan to build a second runway, a privately financed project valued at about £2.2 billion that would lift annual flight numbers by roughly 100,000. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander backed the expansion, describing it as a “no-brainer” for economic growth, according to a government source. Officials said the first flights are unlikely before 2029, with the full effects on passenger numbers and regional ties expected to be realized only in the late 2030s.

Locals in communities surrounding Gatwick reacted with heartbreak and concern. Residents said they feel they are being asked to bear the costs of the project while benefits would largely accrue elsewhere. Ryan Shirley, 56, of Charlwood, who has been part of a local opposition group, told reporters that he would likely put his house on the market as the plan moves forward. “I think it’s terrible. I’ll probably put my house up for sale now. I’m right under the flight plan. At the moment it’s bearable. But this is now just insane. There’s no consideration to locals.” Barbara Cole, 67, who lives near the village boundary, warned the second runway would bring “noise and the environment” concerns that would degrade life in the area. “Why not build a new airport entirely in a more suitable location? Gatwick was already very operational,” she said, adding that the decision could lead to grave environmental consequences and threaten the local way of life.

Helen Hill, 70, a retired teacher, voiced similar fears, saying there is “not one single advantage” and predicting her son may move away as a result. “The fumes and environmental damage will be grave. It’s a terrible decision for everyone involved,” she said. Ami Nicholls, 32, a mother of two, described the news as shocking and said residents had been ignored. “There’s no justification for this. We, as locals in this village, have not had our voices heard. We have been ignored. It’s a nightmare.” She warned of rising traffic and longer summers with more pronounced noise and pollution.

The plans would mark a significant expansion in an area already under pressure from noise, congestion and housing demand. Danny Savage, 54, who lives in the village, urged critics of the plan to adapt, saying opponents who dislike living near an airport should consider consulting their estate agents about the realities of the location. “Anyone who doesn’t like living near an airport and moved in here needs to have a word with their estate agent.” Jenny Rendall, 46, also said she could see potential benefits in more holiday options but emphasized the downsides: higher noise and pollution and questions about who would gain employment from the expansion. Pauline Weston, 65, warned the village risks being destroyed within two decades, saying the area would be “ruined” and that residents’ views had been disregarded.

A new economic analysis accompanying the plan argues the project would deliver about £1 billion annually in economic benefits and create roughly 14,000 additional jobs. Gatwick says the expansion would also unlock better transport links and broader regional growth. The Planning Inspectorate had initially rejected the scheme earlier this year, but recommended that Transport Secretary Alexander approve it if changes were made, a stipulation she followed.

The decision comes as part of a broader push to expand airport capacity in the southeast. In the same month, Heathrow Airport submitted plans for a third runway, a development supporters argue is urgent for regional connectivity while opponents warn it would drive up carbon emissions at a time when the government is pursuing net-zero goals. In Gatwick’s vicinity, residents have already watched house values edge downward during the planning process. A new analysis from estate agency Yopa projected that pre-construction property values in the “Gatwick Diamond” area—covering Crawley, Reigate and Banstead, Horsham, Mid Sussex, Mole Valley, Tandridge and surrounding boroughs—could fall by an average of about 3% before construction begins.

The most pronounced declines are near flight paths and close to the airport. In Mole Valley, values could drop by about £16,205 on average, while the fall could approach £40,500 for homes in the district most directly affected by flight paths. Tandridge and Reigate and Banstead could see dips of around £38,000 and £36,500 respectively. Other nearby areas such as Horsham, Mid Sussex and Crawley could face declines around £33,000, £33,000 and £24,500 respectively. Even as prices dip ahead of construction, the analysis suggested a modest rebound in local property values after the runway is completed, with average gains of about 9.5% as jobs and transport links translate into economic activity.

The government’s decision drew a cautious response in the community. Some residents argued the case for expansion rests on a broader economic argument; others insisted the local cost would be too high. The Daily Mail reported that the Transport Secretary wrote to Gatwick’s owners to confirm approval under the routine use provisions of the northern runway, signaling the formal green light from Whitehall.

Nearby residents and regional leaders alike are watching closely to see how the new runway will affect local infrastructure, housing supply and environmental conditions, as well as how councils and developers will respond to population growth and demand for housing. While supporters emphasize potential job growth and improved travel options, opponents warn the disruption to daily life, increased noise, air quality concerns and the risk of long-term depreciation in local property values. As the area braces for what scientists and planners describe as a major transition, residents say they will be vigilant for how the government and Gatwick manage implementation, mitigations and community impact in the years ahead.