Representation by Sandra Lawes
- Date submitted
- 21 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object to the proposed expansion of Luton Airport on a number of grounds, principally: 1. The increase in aircraft noise – especially at night 2. The idea that increased noise and health hazards for some sectors of the population can be mitigated by the improvement in health and well-being of those employed at the airport 3. The effect on climate change and the environment, including the effect on local wildlife 4. The unsupported assumptions underpinning the business case for expansion. My personal experience of living in Caddington under the flight path of incoming aircraft I moved to Caddington in 2002 when the airport catered for 6 million passengers. I expected some growth in passenger numbers to occur but not an increase of over 500%. Incoming aircraft overfly my house and sometimes we can also hear the noise from departing aircraft. We are subjected to varying levels of noise throughout the day and night. Sometimes we also experience a strong smell of aviation fuel in our garden. There are periods when there are no aircraft and others when there is a continuous procession of them lined up in the sky, coming in every two minutes. The noise varies in pitch and volume depending on the type of aircraft and the weather conditions – sometimes it is at a low volume and at other times it stops conversation inside and outside the house. Our sleep is frequently disrupted as there are clusters of planes around the time we go to bed and early in the morning and we are often woken two or three times during the night by incoming planes. The problem is particularly severe on hot summer nights when we have to choose between sweltering or being woken on multiple occasions. We often have to resort to ear plugs. The increase in aircraft noise The theory behind the way noise levels are predicted bears little relation to the real impact of living with aircraft noise on a daily basis. It is the peak volume of noise generated by each plane, the duration of the sound and the number of aircraft in the ‘cluster’ which determine the real impact on people living in those areas. The massive increase in passenger number and aircraft movements will make life unbearable in communities such as Caddington. The proposal states no increase in night aircraft movements but the night is now defined as a period of only 6.5 hours from 23.30 to 06.00. Even if we were able to fall asleep on the dot of 23.30 – medical and health research shows that 6.5 hours sleep is insufficient for health and well-being. In addition, we already suffer the disruption to our sleep by noisy freighters – which the Airport continues to welcome, despite the multitude of complaints made by residents. We are retired pensioners and I am enraged by the inference in the proposal that the disruption of our sleep and detrimental effect on our health and wellbeing will be mitigated by or the benefits afforded to those taking up employment at the airport. I reject the idea that it is acceptable for us to suffer for the sake of jobs that we can never benefit from! The Airport is already in breach of its permitted passenger numbers and permitted noise levels - the current airport operator (LLAOL) has a retrospective planning application under consideration by the Secretary of State to increase the capacity of the airport from 18 million to 19 million passengers a year. As far as I can ascertain, those entrusted with the task of enforcing the limits have not shown themselves to be effective to date. So how will the proposed Environmental Scrutiny Group have appropriate powers to measure performance, police it, and be properly funded and resourced to undertake this vital role? The proposals for noise mitigation are totally unacceptable. I understand that proposal is to offer double glazing to ‘eligible properties’ but even though the planes overfly our house, we have been advised by Luton Rising that we are not eligible. And even if we were, how are we supposed to cope in the ever-increasing summer temperatures acknowledged by the proposal? The report places great emphasis on technological and scientific advances which it is claimed will reduce noise as ‘new generation’ aircraft are introduced. These claims are ludicrous and it is not feasible that ‘the vast majority of the fleet’ will be these new generation planes by 2037. Aircraft operators have experienced difficult times during and after the pandemic and I have seen no evidence that the updating of their fleets is commercially viable and included in their strategic plans. While aircraft manufacturers are researching and evaluating new ideas such as planes powered by hydrogen or electricity, it is unreasonable to suggest that these will be commercially available within the timescale of the planned expansion. Zero emission aircraft do not exist and are unlikely to do so within the timescale of this proposal. Even if the technology were available now (and it is not even properly developed let alone ready for commercial exploitation), the replacement of existing fleets will take decades. The recent Siemens White Paper on Hydrogen powered aircraft design is littered with words such as ‘challenge’, ‘ambition’, ‘aim’. And Airbus have recently stated that they ‘consider hydrogen to be an important technology pathway to achieve our ambition to bringing a low-carbon commercial aircraft to market by 2035’. Siemens caution that their current activities ‘are just the beginning of a decades-long effort of re-imagining aircraft configurations and addressing material supply chains, energy production, distribution and logistics networks, airport fuel delivery systems and more.’ If the airport is allowed to make this massive increase in passenger numbers before the introduction of quieter, more climate friendly planes is proven and realistically/commercially viable, the effect on the environment and on the quality of life of all those living around the airport will be devastating. The effect on climate change and the environment, including the effect on local wildlife In my opinion, despite the unsubstantiated claims of mitigation and the claim that “Any increase in carbon emissions alone is not a reason to refuse development consent”, the massive increase in passenger numbers will have a seriously detrimental effect on emissions and on air quality in the areas affected by the airport’s operations. Surely this must jeopardise the achievement of the Government’s legally binding target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. The loss of habitat for flora and fauna in the destruction of Wigmore Valley Park is also a serious concern. The viability of the business case for expansion on the proposed scale I have grave concerns about the forecasted demand for air travel in this proposal. I have seen no evidence of the substantiation of the passenger figures predicted and the proposed growth seems to me to be the extrapolation of an outdated historic trend. A number of key factors need to be taken into account to ensure that the forecasts are realistic. Brexit, the Covid pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis, rises in interest rates, concern for the environment and the impact of flying on climate change as well as changes in business practice leading to less travel and more online communication are just some of the factors that will play a part in determining the real demand for air travel in the future and the viability of the business plan. Have large scale surveys been done to understand consumers’ intentions? Have the airlines been extensively consulted about their strategic intentions? Have future changes in legislation and other drivers of change been taken into account? Have sensitivity analyses been conducted? How far can the numbers deviate from the plans before the airport finds itself in serious financial trouble? An expansion of this magnitude comes with massive financial and commercial risk. If the assumptions in the proposal are wrong – as I believe them to be – the financial consequences for Luton Council and for the people of Luton would be catastrophic – impacting on the town and its citizens far more than the devastating closure of the Vauxhall car assembly plant in 2002.