A majority of Londoners say the impact on the local environment is as important as the economic benefits a new runway would bring, according to a poll for Gatwick.
More than half of Londoners (55%) asked by YouGov said that aircraft noise and fumes are among the most important factors to consider when choosing which airport to expand, equivalent to the number (56%) who said economic benefits were important.
The results come as the Airports Commission prepares to launch its public consultation on airport expansion and highlight the careful balance between economic benefit and environmental impact that any decision over airport expansion must strike.
The poll also shows that nearly half of Londoners (46%) continue to think Gatwick should be expanded when given a straight choice between airports, compared to 37% who selected Heathrow.
More than half of Londoners (53%) also said that disruption to the M25 was an important issue to them – the motorway would be tunnelled under if Heathrow built a new runway.
The findings were released to coincide with a report by Gatwick on the noise impact a third runway at Heathrow would have on schools, hospitals and places of worship across London and the southeast.
The West Sussex airport commissioned the study to assess the noise impact of Heathrow’s third runway plans compared to Gatwick’s own proposal for a second runway.
The report suggests that a total of 819 schools, hospitals and places of worship would be adversely affected by noise by 2040 if Heathrow were to expand – nearly double the 421 affected today.
A third runway at Heathrow would nearly double the number of schools affected from 261 to 487 by 2040
Gatwick’s separate analysis submitted to the Airports Commission has already concluded that if a second runway were built at Gatwick, noise would affect 33 schools in the local area by 2040 – ten times fewer than Heathrow’s expansion plans
Gatwick chief executive, Stewart Wingate, said: “Our expansion plans strike the right balance between delivering the extra airport capacity the UK needs, while taking the right steps to protect the environment.
“We have always recognised that expansion should not come at an unacceptable cost to the environment. We have an industry-leading environmental record and, unlike Heathrow, have met air quality standards for more than a decade.
“We would still operate within these standards with a second runway and we would also pay £1,000 annually to residents most affected by noise, something Heathrow cannot begin to do because so many people live under its flight path.