Representation by Gillian Mourant
- Date submitted
- 23 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I strongly object to the proposed increase in passenger numbers and associated building works for the following reasons: 1. Any increase in aviation runs counter to the government’s stated aim and international obligation to reduce carbon emissions. 2. I am concerned that such a huge increase in passenger numbers without a second runway will mean more intensive use of night-time flight slots and I note that there is no mention in the consultation documents of the scheduling of all these extra flights.Local residents already suffer more than those near the other London airports where night-time restrictions are in place as there are no such limitations on the use of Luton airport. This certainly has a detrimental effect on my sleep even though my house is deemed to be well outside the area affected by flight noise and research has shown that prolonged disruption to sleep patterns has a detrimental effect on overall health. 3. The external impact and cost of the expansion on the areas adjoining Luton Airport have not been given proper weight. Any benefits of expansion are primarily within the Luton area whilst the costs in terms of noise pollution, increased road and rail congestion and environmental damage will be borne by Luton’s neighbours who will have no compensatory benefits. The assumption of a significant transfer from road to rail of passengers arriving at the airport relies on (a) the train operator co-operating with this and having the operating ability to do so, something which has not been evidenced and which currently is beyond their capability and (b) the willingness of passengers to do this, also not evidenced. There is already severe congestion on all approach roads to the airport and severe overcrowding on the rail service at peak times. 4. The assumptions of improved aircraft efficiency, particularly around noise, are unproven and unrealistic. The operator has shown no evidence that such improvements can or will be achieved. In addition, they are relying on commercial drivers by the airlines to implement any technological changes. There is no evidence that the economics of operating less polluting and less noisy aircraft will mean that early implementation will be achieved. This has already been illustrated over many years with the continued operation by DHL of a very noisy night-time flight (loud enough to wake me regularly); the airport operator has obviously been unable to persuade or direct DHL to stop using such an outdated aircraft as it is more profitable for DHL not to replace it. 5. Whilst the airport operator has made some proposals on measurement of aircraft noise, there are no details of how, apart from self-regulation, these will be enforced. The current footprint of the area over which noise levels will be measured is restricted and is effectively the boundary of the airport. In order to recognise the costs on the neighbouring towns and villages of noise pollution from Luton Airport the radius of the area to be monitored should be extended to an inner radius of 10 miles and an outer radius of 25 miles from the airport. There should also be stringent regulation and monitoring of noise levels for individual flights, with effective sanctions on the airlines, such as the banning of any further flight using that aircraft. 6. The business case for increased passenger numbers is flawed. The impact of increased costs of aviation fuel on ticket prices and the growing awareness of the climate emergency will mean that the assumed passenger demand will not occur. If permission is given Luton Borough Council will end up with a white elephant but the damage to the local environment from the building work will already have been done. The change in outlook for passenger demand can be seen in the recognition by Heathrow Airport that their proposed new runway is no longer viable.