Representation by Andrew Furtek
- Date submitted
- 15 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Gatwick’s proposed expansion would significantly increase aircraft noise both for those living near the airport, like myself, and for those further away under flight paths. 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. This currently has an adverse impact on 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. This is not an acceptable way forward and should be comprehensively addressed in any application. 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. The likely increase in traffic would increase congestion on local roads and increase off-airport parking. This is already a serious problem locally - and I speak as someone living on the A23 Brighton Road with 24/7 lived experience of current conditions! 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, London Bridge and Brighton. The River Mole and its tributaries have flooded frequently, 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 water quality of the River Mole and Gatwick Stream, which feeds into the Mole, are already poor and further development risks the destruction of the eco-systems in these waterways. I do not think that Gatwick’s overall case for expansion complies 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. I believe the economic benefits of expanding Gatwick have been overstated by 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. 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. The only people who will gain from this proposed expansion are Gatwick Airport's shareholders. The local communities will be ruined by this proposed expansion.