Representation by Alan Blake
- Date submitted
- 19 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Re: Planning Inspectorate’s reference number TR020001 This is to confirm that I object whole heartedly to the proposed expansion of Luton Airport as outlined by Luton Rising in the. Planning Inspectorate’s reference number TR020001. The plans particularly in the area of the terminal build / expansion and the surrounding airport road restructure appear ill thought out. They take little account of the reality at a macro level of the Aviation world or at the micro level the needs of the local community surrounding the airport. Roads The changes to the road network in the Wigmore / Ashcroft area of Luton will cause chaos due to the heavy concentration of traffic lights over very short distance and severely impact the local community. All for what is in effect an alleged easier access to the Airport for a transitory group of people with no attachment or need to visit Luton other than to leave it. Firstly, looking at the road drawings LLADCO-3C-ARP-SFA-HWM-DR-CE-0012 and 0013. The proposal is to replace 4 roundabouts currently in place with traffic lights and associated pedestrian crossings. Four sets of traffic lights in little more than 400m. Within this area and off one of the proposed signalised junctions is a school some 250m from the junction. At least twice a day vehicle traffic dropping off / collecting children from the school fills the road from the junction to the school gates. (Cars, parking, manoeuvring, turning round) At another of the proposed signalised junctions is the entrance to an extremely busy Supermarket which has a petrol station immediately before a car park. The queue of cars for petrol already leads to tail backs onto Wigmore Lane. No further than 80m beyond this junction the proposal has a further set of traffic lights replacing a roundabout at the junction of Wigmore Lane and Eaton Green Road. It is also proposed that within 60m of the junction of Wigmore Lane and Eaton Green Road, another set of traffic signals are to be installed at the junction of Keeble Close at the start of the new Terminal 2 access road. Even if it is believed that traffic through these junctions is only marginally increasing (with all the other road changes across the overall scheme) using traffic lights to resolve the situation with 5 sets in a little over 500m is not the answer. Further to the above, road drawings LLADCO-3C-ARP-SFA-HWM-DR-CE-0011 and 14. Both drawings refer to Eaton Green Road. They add a further 2 sets of traffic lights to those previously mentioned. The first at the junction of Lalleford Road and the second at the junction with Frank Lester Way. Both result in removing the current roundabouts. As a result, the proposal has 7 sets of traffic lights in close proximity with each other which will only add to the congestion, extend journey times, and increase noise and air pollution. The proposal does not include any alterations / traffic mitigation measures to other junctions along Wigmore Lane or its junction with Ashcroft Road and its junction with Hitchin Road (A505). Why is this not included? This area includes a local shopping centre and school which result in additional parking during the day and will have an impact on any additional traffic generated by the proposed airport expansion. If it is believed the traffic from the East will follow the A505 and onto the “proposed” dual carriage way of the East Circular / Vauxhall Way to the Airport. Therefore, reducing or removing additional traffic from the Jansel House, Ashcroft Road Wigmore Lane junctions. Why are the changes in Wigmore Lane / Eaton Grean Road area proposed? If vehicles travelling from the East along the A505 are using SATNAV to arrive at the airport they will automatically be turned onto Ashcroft Road and into Wigmore Lane from the Jansel House roundabout. Not taken to the “new” dual carriage way of the East circular / Vauxhall Way. In addition to these short-sighted plans for road infrastructure. The impact on the local environment with increased air pollution. Increases in road traffic, air and noise pollution and on people’s health will be severe. I understand the Council has concerns over the level of pollution In the Town centres streets. What measures would they propose for this “corridor of traffic”? Overall if the local roads around the airport (Wigmore Lane / Eaton Green) need the introduction of such radical measures (a minimum of 8 sets of traffic lights – when both ends of Lalleford Road is included) in such a small area. This proves the roads around this area are totally inadequate for the assumed level of traffic that would be heading to the expanded Airport. Therefore on this point alone the Airport expansion proposal should be rejected. Lastly, in the area of road infrastructure. It is well known the North Herts District Council are proposing a major residential development just to the East of this area right up to the Luton boundary. The North Herts Local plan up to 2031 proposes 2,100 homes to be built in the Cockenhoe, Mangrove Green, area. What if any consideration of this development has been undertaken and its impact on roads / environment / development at the same time as that of the airport? Terminal Expansion As with the roads proposal associated with Airport expansion the building of Terminal 2 and associated works is another ill thought-out development and vanity project by Luton Rising and I object to it for the following reasons. Apart from objecting to the additional noise, noise pollution, environmental issues, Health concerns on the local community when it’s completed; let alone the sheer scale of work required to enable the expansion (Along with the afore mentioned house building plans of North Herts County Council) It also has to be seriously questioned as to the need and viability of further expansion to the Airport. Since the pandemic travel by air is regaining popularity. However, cost increases, environmental impacts and other economic and political factors in the next 10 years may reduce the overall number of people travelling by air especially from regional airports. Additionally, as these impacts take effect, we will see consolidation across airlines with the resultant route restructures to reduce inefficiencies and overlapping routes. Resulting in airlines focusing on strategies that consolidate operations not spread them across multiple airports. In the UK over the last 15 years while regional airports have responded to the increase in “low-cost carriers” by expanding. None have built 2nd or even 3rd Terminals. In fact, the 2 biggest regional airports Birmingham & Manchester have or are consolidating multiple terminals into one. They recognise the inefficiency of a multi terminal approach where an airport suffers significant “peak and trough” activity. (daily & seasonally) Further afield even major airports such as Berlin, Istanbul – both brand new have been designed and built as single terminal entities. Recognising the efficiency (in all areas, both operational and financial) this provides. We are told that the current limits of passenger throughput at Luton Airport are or are close to breaching the number allowed. A small increase to I believe 21m passengers per year has been applied for (or recently agreed). Like all regional airports Luton has “peaks and troughs” of activity both during the day and seasonally. Except for the peak periods the runway use is not at capacity during the current operating hours. During the last public consultation period I attended one of the meetings and was advised that a second terminal was required mainly due to a desire of the 2 largest based carriers wanting to increase the ability to park aircraft overnight. The result, additional opportunities for “early” morning departures – feeding the peak. This is short sighted business as it does nothing to solve the problem. All it does is create a scenario that ends in creating bigger peaks and hoping you can fill the ever-deeper troughs. It is extremely inefficient when spread across a 2-terminal infrastructure and costly. And with the added risk that if the troughs cannot be filled debts and or costs rise, with the latter eventually driving business away. Before any idea of building another Terminal is considered. A realistic long-term view of the Airline business which would include what other London Airports (more popular with Airlines) are also planning. Plus looking at how more efficient use of the current facilities should be undertaken. In this latter point There are many areas where this can be carried out. Eg -Incentivising carriers to use the “troughs” in traffic by having reduced charges during these times -Removing some of the commercial units within the terminal structure to increase the size of the security screening area and or baggage claim. (In essence those services deemed as operationally essential). -Offering Car Park bag drop off. Customers with boarding passes would then proceed to security negating the need to check bags in at the terminal. -Extend the common pooling of ground handling equipment to that of Passenger handling. Technology now provides solutions whereby if you need to use check-in at an airport it is at a “Common bag drop”. Thus, ensuring maximum efficiency of desks and kiosks not restricted by use by an individual airline in a given timeframe based on schedules. Overall, the cost of delivering a second terminal. The increased debt burden of Luton Rising / Luton Council (which already has losses on the Airport in the past 12 months of £232 million). All underwritten by the Council who although using public money have an “opaque” business culture when it comes to sharing how money raised from the public purse is actually spent on the Airport. Based on the above I object to the plans proposed for expanding Luton Airport.