Representation by Jerry Gallaher
- Date submitted
- 8 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
AIR QUALITY: The increase in flights & consequently aircraft emissions will be significant. And claims that next generation aircraft will mitigate this are simply untrue. Electric and/or hydrogen-fuelled planes are nowhere near in existence. The mention in the proposal of ‘expected zero emissions aircraft’ is frankly laughable. And if the government has a commitment to Carbon Zero by 2050, this proposal will radically hinder the chances of that globally important goal becoming a reality. BIODIVERSITY: The loss to local biodiversity cannot be mitigated with ‘best practice construction management’ and measures like ‘artificial bat roosts’. 3 large areas of land specifically designated for nature conservation will be affected. (Wigmore Park, Winch Hill Wood & Dairyborn Scarp). 100% of Wigmore Park will be lost as well as 20% of Dairyborn Scarp, And claims of ‘a net gain to biodiversity of 10%’ are not feasible and not actually measurable – biodiversity is built up over decades and to suggest that the losses through construction can simply be replaced overnight with careful management are arrogant and misguided. HEALTH & COMMUNITY: Very little concern appears to have been shown to those affected by the increase in flights. Increase in flight noise. Increase in night flights. LANDSCAPE & VISUAL: The geographical and physical layout of the proposed area is simply not viable. The airport is on a small hill and to raise the area to make it level will require hundreds of thousands of tons of earth to be driven to, and onto, the site. This is surely not viable – given the emissions/ecological upheaval required. In an age of sustainability, this is not a sensible way to build anything – especially an airport. NOISE & VIBRATION: These ‘new generation aircraft’ that are so continuously referred to in the proposal are not enough. The Neos are only fractionally quieter than the planes they replace and not enough to be discernibly quieter on the ground. The suggestion that future aircraft that will use ‘sustainable fuel, hydrogen and electric’ are ‘currently in development’ is a wild overclaim. They are nowhere near a possibility and to claim that they are expected by the mid 2030’s is preposterous. The proposal even admits that ‘their noise performance is unknown’ so how they can be used as a mitigating factor in aircraft noise? Over the years, the noise has increased as the number of flights has gone up, and will only get worse with yet more flights. How can you claim a ‘reduction in noise exposure’ based on ‘more efficient aircraft’ when the proposal readily admits that these aircraft’s noise performance is unknown? (And are the limits on night-flight numbers really to stay the same?) TRAFFIC & TRANSPORT: Local rural roads are already used as ‘rat runs’ to the airport. An increase in passenger numbers would only make this problem worse.