SUSSEX could miss out on nearly £2 billion a year in what was described as a huge blow for the economy after Gatwick Airport's expansion bid was snubbed for a second time.

The Government established Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership had estimated that the expansion of Gatwick would have generated £2 billion for Sussex and Gatwick had put the figure at £1.73 million.

So businesses and politicians lamented the long-awaited Government announcement which yesterday favoured Heathrow over the Sussex airport for a new runaway by 2025.

Councillor Warren Morgan, leader of Brighton and Hove City Council, said he was incredibly disappointed at the decision which was a "real blow for the city".

He said: "The economic boost would have been significant allowing the city to strengthen links between businesses, create jobs and attract more tourists. If Gatwick won the bid the rail improvements around Croydon would have been vastly accelerated which would have benefited this area."

Jeremy Taylor, chief executive of Gatwick Diamond Business, said conditions which will be imposed on Heathrow were likely to be "insurmountable" and Gatwick was a better option.

Mr Taylor said: "Fundamentally, I believe a third runway at Heathrow cannot be delivered. There are too many obstacles from surrounding councils and from London MPs."

Despite the news, Gatwick chief executive Stewart Wingate said the airport was still waiting in the wings for a chance to expand.

He said: "We do not believe this is the right answer for Britain. Our continued growth shows that it’s only a matter of time before we need a second runway. Gatwick stands ready to proceed when the time comes."

Norwegian Airlines said its plans to add more routes and flights at the airport remained "unchanged" despite the backing for Heathrow.

East Sussex County Council and the MPs Caroline Ansell and Peter Kyle also spoke of their disappointment.

Mr Kyle, teh Labour MP for Hove, said: "The Gatwick proposals would have created opportunities for the greater Brighton economy and we now need to look at how policy makers and politicians can support Gatwick and realise its potential."

He said choosing Gatwick would have cut flight costs for passengers as it offered competition to existing Heathrow destinations. The bid also claimed to create 120,000 jobs.

The Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership and the Sussex Chamber of Commerce also echoed the words of Gatwick Diamond Business.

The decision paves the way for hundreds of thousands of more flights a year at Heathrow which is expected to prompt widespread protests and legal challenges with campaigners raising concerns about air quality, noise, congestion and climate change.

Caroline Lucas, joint leader of the Green Party and Brighton Pavilion MP, is against a new runway altogether and called the decision "climate-wrecking".

Sussex campaigners, particularly those from the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign and Communities against Gatwick Noise and Emissions, breathed a sigh of relief at the news.

YEARS OF DEBATE AND PREVARICATION ON AIRPORTS

AIRPORT expansion has been a topic of debate for 40 years.

We heard yesterday it will be at least another nine years before a new runway is built – if one is built at all – with at least another year of discussion and debate ahead of us first.

Critics claimed a final decision on which airport will grow has been hampered by years of prevarication.

In 2009 David Cameron, the then Conservative leader in opposition, memorably said: “The third runway at Heathrow is not going ahead, no ifs, no buts.”

That same year Theresa May pledged to fight against expansion and warned it would have a “detrimental” effect on Maidenhead in her constituency newsletter.

Mr Cameron repeated his position in 2010 when he became Prime Minister, saying the plan had been “scrapped”. But in 2012 it was announced the Airports Commission, headed up by Sir Howard Davies, would advise on expansion.

His report took three years to be published and cost £20 million.

In July last year the conclusion was “clear and unanimous” that Heathrow offered the best economic benefits and increased capacity.

There was disbelief from Sussex businesses when Gatwick was overlooked. But campaigners were relieved the threat of an “environmental disaster” had been lifted. They said there would be no rejoicing due to the “misery” which will be created for those living near Heathrow. Politicians and councils were split in opinion and continue to be today.

In the report, Sir Howard said: “Heathrow is best-placed to provide the type of capacity which is most urgently required: long-haul destinations to new markets. It provides the greatest benefits for business passengers, freight operators and the broader economy.”

Gatwick presented a “plausible” case for expansion and was well-placed to cater for growth in European leisure flying, according to the 350-page report.

Heathrow’s proposal was expected to cost £17.6 billion in private funding, plus as much as £6 billion in public funding.

Nearly 800 homes would have to be demolished to build a third new runway at Heathrow – compared to around 163 in Sussex.

The commission insisted its recommendations would ensure an expanded Heathrow would be a “better neighbour” to those living nearby.

Gatwick consistently argued its scheme would cause the least disruption, pollution and noise, would cost only £9.3 billion and would be fully privately financed. At the time the Sussex airport bosses insisted it was “still in the race”.

The Government was urged to back the recommendation for a third runway at Heathrow by 2030 with a significant package of compensation and mitigation measures for affected residents.

Earlier this year Mrs May, before she became Prime Minister, said expanding Gatwick was “credible and deliverable”. Former Conservative Cabinet minister Theresa Villiers said Gatwick expansion would take less time and money and cause a “fraction” of the environmental impact.

In June, Willie Walsh, chief executive of the International Airlines Group which owns British Airways, threatened to reduce its flights at Gatwick if the airport was given permission to expand.

In October, Sir Howard said the Brexit vote had made the case for expansion at Heathrow “overwhelming”.

Yesterday, the Government came under fire for the time it has taken to make the decision but Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said he made “no apology” for looking at all the proposals properly.

The decision to back the Davies report was made by the airports sub-committee, which did not include well-known opposition MPs such as Boris Johnson, Justine Greening or any other London MPs. The Cabinet was informed of the decision but the decision process is by no means over. A forthcoming public consultation in the New Year will be “full and fair”, Mrs May said, before a final proposal will be put to a vote by MPs in the winter of 2017-18. Yesterday, indicated there is widespread disagreement between MPs about the best way forward.

Once the vote is taken the airport in question will then have to put forward detailed plans and go through a local authority planning process before any progress can be made.

Any expansion is not expected to be completed before 2025.