Representation by Alan Edward Drew
- Date submitted
- 23 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I wish to object to the proposals of ‘Luton Rising’ to expand the airport to a capacity of 32 million passenger per year on both environmental and noise pollution grounds. These slightly revised proposals continue London Luton Airport Limited’s previous attempts to significantly and aggressively expand the airport, now doing so under the new guise of ‘Luton Rising’. These proposals will double Luton Airport’s current emissions of some 2.2 million tons of CO2 and about 200,000 tons of other greenhouse gases. Aviation is the fastest growing producer of greenhouse gasses, and high-altitude emissions are amongst the most harmful. The UK Parliament, leading scientists and environmental organisations worldwide agree that there is a climate emergency produced by unmitigated carbon emissions. We have run out of time to halt the increase in the emissions we produce, let alone to reduce them to net zero and create a more sustainable future. An expansion of any airport is the very opposite of what we need to do to tackle our current emissions, and this proposal is to double the capacity of this airport with the resulting increase in emissions. There is currently no evidence that technological advances in aircraft and engine design will be sufficient to prevent the harmful effects of air traffic to the environment and resulting increase of global warming. In addition to the carbon emissions emitted by aircraft using the airport there will be a further increase in emissions from cars, other vehicles and trains transporting passengers to and from the airport (whether or not these be electric or internal combustion powered). The UK has a legally binding commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050 and to achieve this we should be curtailing, not increasing, the number and frequency of flights from UK airports. Failure to do so will result in devastating changes in climate, some of which we are already seeing, and children yet unborn will bear the consequences of this organisation’s irresponsible behaviour. In addition to the general consequences of this expansion there will be a further increase in noise pollution which will negatively impact residents across a wide swathe of Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire. Residents of these counties are already subjected to almost continuous noise from aircraft using Luton, Heathrow and Stanstead, together with numerous flights by helicopters and private aircraft. This noise nuisance has become significantly worse since the revision of approach patterns for Luton and Stanstead on the pretext of safety (and without any consultation with those directly affected). As a consequence my village is now subjected to the noise (and pollution) from low flying commercial jets for a number of hours every day. I note that Luton claim these aircraft will be throttled back in the descent phase, but this is certainly not the case, both because this depends on the discretion of individual pilots, and because they fly a turning pattern in order to get back onto the glideslope, during which they routinely throttle up to accomplish their turn. A village which was once relatively unaffected by commercial jet noise is now repeatedly subjected to it. Finally it is clear that the proposals will have a negative impact on those living closest to the airport, including the damage to Wigmore Park, the additional road traffic in the local area, the significant increase in both noise, light and air pollution. The only apparent benefit will be a small growth in local employment (and that somewhat precarious judging by the number of people who lost their jobs in the covid outbreak), and an increase in the profits of those who stand directly to benefit, including the airlines using the airport and its owner Luton Borough Council. Any proposal that will further increase noise, emissions and air pollution is objectionable on those grounds alone. A proposal that will produce more greenhouse gasses in a time of declared ‘climate emergency’ can only be described as insane, and as demonstrating a total disregard for future generations. We should not be trying to ‘mitigate’ this, but to be putting a stop to it. This requires a rejection of the current proposals for the airport’s expansion.