EXPANDING Heathrow Airport would be worth more than £5billion to the economy of Plymouth and the wider region, say UK business leaders.

A study published by the British Chambers of Commerce says a controversial third runway, vigorously opposed by environmental campaigners, would free up space for air links from the South West, and so providing a vital link to global markets, and secure inward investment.

There are currently no routes from the region into Heathrow, which is seen as an obstacle to business in an area poorly served by road and rail links.

The BCC report says extending Heathrow would be worth £160million a year to the regional economy, and over a 60-year period would deliver benefits to the tune of £5.4billion – the biggest impact on any other region outside London and the South East.

There is growing pressure on the Government to secure an air route between the city and Heathrow, to bolster business.

Plymouth City Council had been trying to get an obligation imposed to guarantee a Heathrow link, but had so far failed.

It was at the start of the year that the Government flew in the face of strong opposition by backing a third runway at Heathrow Airport, saying the needs of the economy and the environment had to be balanced.

The way is now open for a 7,200ft runway – likely to be completed around 2019-20 – to be constructed north of, and parallel to, Heathrow's existing two runways. The new runway will lead to the destruction of the village of Sipson.

Produced for the BCC by the economics and transport consultancy company Colin Buchanan, the report said: "An expanded hub airport would generate significant gains for the regions, especially those currently excluded from Heathrow due to a lack of capacity.

"Some 60 per cent of the benefits are predicted to be outside London and the South East."

It added: "A key difference between investment in airport expansion and in high-speed rail is that the cost of airport expansion and the risks associated with future revenue streams would be borne by the private sector, whereas rail infrastructure investments would be funded by the taxpayer."