Representation by John Shelley
- Date submitted
- 15 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I strongly object to this application, Gatwick is a bad neighbour. I believe this Northern Runway application should be thrown out immediately, such is its potential to significantly damage the world's future, through increase in greenhouse emissions.. It will be said many times, that there is no 'existing' second runway currently operating in conjunction with the main runway (it is only used when the main runway is not being used) – As such I believe Gatwick has been deliberately misleading residents about the current existence of a ‘second’ runway, and I suspect attempting to get a second runway without public Enquiry process.. Given the gravity of the likely effects on Climate Change, I believe a full public Enquiry is needed. Despite the bamboozling amount of paperwork Gatwick have generated for this proposed expansion, (the price of £4500 for a paper copy says a lot). It will be the information that they have omitted that is often the most crucial...As such I ask any examiners of the proposal to stand back for logic, to be very thorough in their understanding, and to look for what is missing and check the accuracy of what will be affected..Remember the future of the worlds climate is at stake. Having lived in Charlwood all my life, I have seen many Gatwick expansion proposals come and go, In my experience Gatwick have had a regular habit of hiding facts, omitting the important facts in its proposals,and of providing misleading and leading facts to blur the focus onto unimportant minor information. An example:- The A4 white cover Northern runway consultation document of a year ago went to great lengths to explain the proposed enlarged exits at the A23 Horley roundabout,showing plans of how the footpaths around the roundabout would change, yet the same document failed to provide any measures being introduced to lessen the additional at Charlwood. I ask the planners to be vigilant to ensure the people of Charlwood get a better deal on noise, not an increase. Some further examples of omitted/misleading in Gatwick's proposal documents, In the A4 white Gatwick Northern Runway consultation document (of perhaps a year ago) :-. The name 'Charlwood' was only mentioned twice in the entire consultation document (despite the document being huge, and Charlwood being the most affected community). The village name 'Charlwood' was missing from most of the consultation's maps and plans, (despite less affected places having their names included).Many of the Maps/plans in the consultation documents were rotated, i.e. not positioned with 'North upwards' in the consultation document, making them difficult to interpret. I suspect the above type of omissions on the consultation were deliberately done to deceive and confuse the public, (who were trying to understand if they were affected by proposals). The effect was making the affected locations changes unintelligible to all but the most geographically savvy readers. I understand that Gatwick accidentally left out the emissions figures from 'incoming aircraft' in the overall statistics in documentation of a previous expansion proposal . In reality the examiners need to ensure that every additional Co2 emission is considered for example all the new 'no-airside' vehicle journeys needs to be within the total emissions figures...., heres a quick list to check for.....for example are all these included and realistic...:Car emissions for journey to and from home for airport workers.Emissions for the passenger arriving from their homes around England to Gatwick by car Emissions for the private offsite and unofficial countryside car parking, their drop off teams, and retrievals.Emissions for aircraft food lorries from their remote kitchen factories to planes, Emissions of the food preparation staff from their home to factory's kitchen, Emissions of the passengers' vehicles driving to and from the official, and unofficial car parking. The transport emissions of the new hotel workers. On top of all this there are the emissions of all the years of concrete crushing of existing aircraft carriageways, Emissions of the years of vehicles carrying the concrete to the remote concrete crushing sites, Emissions for the years of removal/storage/redistribution of the crushed concrete.Vehicle Emissions of the building staff journeys, Emissions generated by the manufacture of required new concrete. Vehicle emissions for the haulage of new concrete and its reinforcement to site. In reality Gatwick's perceived positives for increasing their airport capacity simply do not add up. Other people will explain this better, however here's a few bullet points as to why Gatwick is an unsuitable location for further expansion:- The single railway line, The lack of suitable road infrastructure,The surrounding regions already low unemployment,The lack of homes for new workers, The already congested 'smart' M23 motorway, The existing lack of enough passenger car parking, creating demand for unofficial use of fields for car parking, Having lived in Charlwood all my life, I'm under no illusion that Gatwick as a foreign owned company, really care about pollution, or that tehey really care about ruining the green and pleasant land that is Charlwood and its surroundings, they are not doing this out ofb goodwill to help england, all they want is increase in their share value and profits. Expansion at Gatwick should be quickly rejected, Gatwick is big enough. I am concerned that Gatwick expansion will ruin my ancestral village, making it a place where people will no longer live, where they can no longer enjoy their gardens and the beautiful surrounding countryside. I have lived all my life in Charlwood:- it is a beautiful 800 year old Historic village, despite it being just 2 miles from Gatwick it retains a great sense of community, friendliness, low crime rate and has huge history. Gatwick's Northern Runway proposals move the noise ,the concrete, the traffic and the pollution significantly closer to Charlwood. This will ruin a community that really works. The potential Ground Noise increase at Charlwood doesn't seem to be considered in the proposal yet affects my outdoor life and sleep.The plans show the existing large L shape Earth Bund at the end of the emergency runway has had a limb removed, becoming a straight line shape parallel to the runway, I fear this removal of this strategically positioned part of the bund will expose Charlwood residents to a direct line of sound from both existing and proposed runways.from taxiing aircraft queueing aircraft and 'take off roar' of the southern runway aircraft. This existing L shape bund is tall enough to shield the noise from waiting aircraft's APU's (which sit high in the tail of aircraft), this height and location helps shield Charlwood from some high note noise from queuing aircraft waiting to get to end of runway for take off. I was born in Charlwood, have always lived in Charlwood, My family can be traced back 10 generations in Charlwood, My sleep is significantly affected by Gatwick aircraft and ground noise: I am often woken by aircraft noise from 5am to 7am , and often kept awake by aircraft take offs around 11pm. Additionally I am often woken during the night by an aircraft . I feel successful sleep should be a human right, and any further expansion at Gatwick should be accompanied by a total ban on all night flights. How I am affected by Gatwick Noise.......I live in one of Charlwoods 60 fantastic Listed buildings. Like most Charlwood listed buildings, my house is timber framed with infill between the oak timbers. The same Oak framing timbers are exposed on both inside and out, Wood is a material thatb expands and contracts with the moisture, which means small gaps appear between timber and the infill as the timbers shrink in the summer, Equally the wood expands in the winter and many gaps mostly close. mastic does not solve this. . This means like the other historic buildings, we get significant aircraft noise in each room (which the Gatwick window secondary double glazing does not cure). Please reject this proposal .