Representation by Mr. John A. Smith
- Date submitted
- 12 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Introduction: I am deeply concerned about the proposed expansion of Luton Airport. To me, it is a self-serving and downright selfish scheme that has no consideration for the surrounding areas and the environment. It seems to me that the owners/managers are happy to get the passengers away from the airport and dump them onto the rail network, local roads, and the M1, where they then become someone else’s problem when things go wrong. It is hard to see any real benefits other than within the Luton area, whereas the detriment to other communities is manifest. Approval of this proposed expansion leaves those areas to suffer the consequences forever. Transport: There is no doubt that traffic on the M1 will be severely affected. It is busy enough now and not just at peak times. Junction 10 of the M1 produces major hold-ups and, with additional traffic, the situation will be chaotic. I am sceptical of “traffic surveys” that, for schemes such as this, always seem to massively underestimate the actual impact of the development proposed. I do not want to see the result of so-called "traffic surveys", undertaken on a Sunday morning - they must be done on weekdays (and not during school holidays) between 7.00 am and 10.00 am; and 4.00pm and 7.00pm. As it stands, if there is an accident or other hold-up on the M1 today, the extra traffic through St Albans, Harpenden, Wheathampstead and Redbourn causes major problems. This would be much worse with increased volumes of traffic and, in any event, I would envisage that some vehicles will come through St Albans and Harpenden anyway and use it as a “rat-run” to avoid the M1 and potential delays, particularly traffic coming from the M25. There is no consideration of passengers coming from the East and the West where there are no railways and they have to rely on vehicular access on local roads. Sat-navs instruct the drivers to use local roads and NOT the M25 and M1, despite the flawed CAA "models". It is not factual that people travelling from the north-east and east access the airport by using the A1(M), M25 and M1. The A1(M) gets congested where the three lane section moves down to two lanes and the M25 intersection is always busy because it is a conventional traffic light roundabout rather than a motorway intersection giving access to local roads and a service area. The A505 and B653 (which is no more than a country road) take a lot of airport traffic to the detriment of the local population. Full, detailed and extensive traffic surveys need to be undertaken, especially during the high season. The road system into and around Luton will be severely affected - the road to and from the airport cannot cope now. Thameslink trains are packed out now and this will get worse with any additional housing planned up the line in Harlington, Leagrave, Flitwick, Ampthill, and Bedford, plus additional housing in Redbourn, Wheathampstead, St Albans and Harpenden. The last thing that regular, daily commuters want, who pay a great deal of money for their season tickets, are carriages clogged up with Luton airport passengers and their luggage. There is limited space for luggage on these trains. If the Luton Airport Express is not running or is having delays, then the DART system will mean even more overcrowding on Thameslink, it is not sustainable. If the whole rail system is down or having severe delays, and all the trains are cancelled, there will be mayhem and it will be someone else’s problem, not the airport’s. The owners/managers are relying far too much on the rail system. What is Plan B, if the whole rail system is down? Utilities: We are regularly being told by our local water company to conserve water, which was exacerbated by the hot summer last year, and this proposed expansion will substantially increase usage, as will the additional houses being built in the local wider area. Global warming will worsen the problem. What will the additional water usage be and where will it be sourced and to what effect on the general public? What are the proposals on energy supply requirements? They have to be convincing, not least in the face of the huge uncertainties that have recently been introduced into UK supplies. Adding significantly to this is the threat of blackouts in winter and beyond. How will the owners/managers handle the increased volume of sewage, waste water, contaminated water, cleaning materials, and other chemicals, etc.? Environment: Communities such as mine believe that the proposal will add significantly to the air pollutants they already endure, not least in terms of prevailing wind directions on many days. There is a particular concern for the primary schools in the area, with some under the flight paths, and the impact on young lungs which will be affected by the additional pollution. We need a detailed understanding of the worst case possibilities for schools such as: The Linden Academy, Surrey Street, and Oakwood, to name but three, if this were to proceed, and how they will be mitigated. As a nation, we have a commitment to reduce global warming and reduce significantly pollutants in the atmosphere. A reduction in air traffic is necessary, so how does this expansion support that? The owners/managers say that the project will "minimise the environmental impact", but what does this mean? What might appear “minimal” to them could be devastating for others. Will they guarantee the level of that minimal impact? How are the owners/managers going to protect the local ancient woodlands? On the list of Bedfordshire's ancient woodland, of those woods of over 10 hectares (25 acres), all of which have SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest), and cover a total of 628 hectares (1,550 acres). Of the eight woods on the list, five fall roughly on the line of heavily wooded sandstone that runs diagonally across the county south of Bedford, i.e. towards Luton airport. These include: King's Wood, Maulden Wood, Odell Great Wood, Potton Wood, and Swineshead Wood. In addition, Kidney Wood is ancient semi-natural woodland on the southern edge of Luton that has been identified as a County Wildlife Site. Such woodland is a national priority habitat and a priority habitat in the Bedfordshire and Luton Biodiversity Action Plan. There is also woodland at Luton Hoo. How will the owners/managers protect the farms very close to the airport and under the fight paths that will be badly affected by the additional pollution, on their crops and on the grass that feeds their livestock, including horses, cattle and sheep? The proposed expansion would result in attracting passengers from a much wider base in the country, thus increasing the number of vehicles on the roads and increasing pollution on the roads as well as in the air. How will the owners/managers address this?: In June last year, the independent Climate Change Committee (CCC) revealed its recommendations in its annual report to Parliament on the progress being made to address Britain's contribution to global warming. The conclusion was that the government's advisers on tackling climate change warned that current plans will not deliver on Legal targets to cut emissions in the coming decades. In its 619 page report, the CCC advises that Ministers should pay more attention to behavioural changes by nudging people towards greener lifestyle choices, including flying less. When it comes to flying, the CCC suggests reversing the cut to air passenger duty brought in last year, as well as introducing other taxes and frequent flyer levies to encourage people not to travel by plane so much. The report states that “The price of flying should be raised to the point that it acts as an effective signal to consumers that aviation has high emissions costs.” Noise: What will the owners/managers do to reduce the additional noise generated with the additional flights, irrespective of what type of aircraft are used. What about during the night?