Representation by David A Fenwick
- Date submitted
- 5 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The expansion should not go ahead. I strongly argue against Gatwick having a second runway and also argue strongly for a ban on night-flights. People living under Gatwick’s flight path have been suffering increasingly from excessive noise disturbance from night aircraft, made more acute in recent years with an increase in air traffic. All this is made worse by Gatwick being allowed to concentrate in the summer months its annual quota of night-fights. The Davies Commission recognised the detrimental impact of night-flights - " Night flights are considered particularly disruptive by local residents around both Heathrow and Gatwick. They can contribute to sleep disturbance, which may lead to both health impacts (such as an increased risk of hypertension) and lost productivity for people who have suffered from lack of sleep". With a second runway, those living under Gatwick’s flight path will be subject to another large increase in over-flying aircraft at night-time, many of which will be associated with rising numbers of long-haul passengers who will be travelling at anti-social hours. This raises the obvious question of how will Gatwick cope with these additional flights without causing even more misery to the local population? No doubt Gatwick will argue for an increase in its quota of take-offs and landings, including at night-time and early morning, as part of the package for a second runway. Minimising the detrimental impact of night flights on those living under the flight path should be a key objective of those opposed to Gatwick expansion. There are limited night-flight restrictions at Gatwick, and these are far less restrictive than at Heathrow. It is also interesting to note that some airports - including Frankfurt - have banned night flights and continue to be viable and major hubs. Noise Expansion of Gatwick would significantly increase aircraft noise both for those living near the airport and for those further away under flight paths. The noise envelope Gatwick has proposed are not consistent with government policy and CAA guidance and are wholly one-sided. They should be substantially revised. Night flights A ban on night flights should be a condition of any expansion at Gatwick. The airport should also be required to set out a comprehensive package of measures to incentivise the use of the quietest aircraft at night outside the hours of a ban. Climate change and air pollution. Expansion on the scale proposed would increase very substantially the CO2 emissions and other climate effects associated with Gatwick’s operations and flights. There are currently no proven technologies for reducing aviation emissions at scale. Expansion of Gatwick would therefore have a material impact on the UK’s ability to meet its carbon reduction targets. Carbon emissions will also result from construction works and increased road traffic to the airport. Flights and traffic will make air pollution worse. Transport impacts Gatwick’s targets to increase how many people bus, train, walk and cycle are insufficient to prevent a massive increase in road traffic around the airport. This increase in traffic would increase congestion on local roads and increase off-airport parking. Gatwick is not providing any extra rail services but the project will increase pressure on future train services, with the result that more passengers will have to stand on the mainline services between London Victoria and Brighton. Flood Risk Over the years the River Mole and its tributaries have flooded, especially when the Airport and sewage treatment plants discharge water in extreme events. Climate change is making these extreme events more frequent and severe. Expansion of the Airport, and other developments locally, need to properly take this into account. Need Gatwick’s overall case for expansion does not comply with the Airports National Policy Statement which requires airports (other than Heathrow) to demonstrate sufficient need to justify their expansion proposals, additional to (or different from) the need which would be met by the provision of a Northwest Runway at Heathrow. This growth at Gatwick will have a huge adverse environmental effect on our communities and countryside. The only people to benefit will be Gatwick's shareholders. Economic case The economic benefits of expanding Gatwick have been overstated by the Gatwick Airport Ltd. Significant economic, social and environmental costs have been ignored and/or understated. The economic benefits of air transport growth are subject to diminishing returns. In an already highly connected economy such as the UK, additional economic benefits from further expanding air transport are largely dependent on net inbound tourism and business travel growth. Both of these are absent in the UK today (more people fly on holidays overseas and business travel has flat-lined in the UK since 2006 as set out here). When Gatwick's scheme costs, benefits, and the long-term societal risks are taken into account, the scheme’s economic case no longer stacks up and entails unreasonable levels of risk to local, national and international wellbeing. In addition, the proposed scheme by incentivising UK residents to spend more overseas, this project will cost jobs and economic activity at home, particularly in the poorest parts of the UK, contradicting the government’s levelling-up agenda.