Representation by Aidan Zeall
- Date submitted
- 10 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I strongly object to Gatwick Airports plan to bring it's emergency runway in to full time use for the following reasons. I do not believe that the project meets the definition of use of existing infrastructure. To be viable the existing emergency runway will need to be moved. There will also be a large amount of new infrastructure created under the plan including new taxiways, car parks, roads and hotels and office buildings. 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. Existing noise levels are unacceptable and will be vastly increased by the expansion plans. 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. Local residents are already subject to unacceptable levels of night flight noise as a result of late arrival / departure of aircraft at the airport. A recent Friends of the Earth report highlighted poor air quality across most of Crawley, which is close to Crawley. This has the potential to impact on the health of residents. 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. 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. Gatwick is also proposing an increase in the freight that comes in to the airport. The only way for this to be transported from the airport is by road, which will increase already high air pollution and traffic congestion. 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. The River Mole is also already heavily polluted and any increase in this will cause serious environmental problems in the future. Gatwick Airport already has a problem with flight delays and cancellations and has been heavily criticised by it's own passengers because of the poor state of its facilities and services. I would therefore suggest that the airport focusses on getting it's current house in order before embarking on what would be a massive increase in it's infrastructure. 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. 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. The airport claims that there will be a massive increase in jobs as a result of it's plans. The figures that they are claiming for this are questionable to say the least and will be further diminished by the contuining process of automation of job roles which is already well underway at the airport.