Representation by Lynda Rosemary Marsden
- Date submitted
- 20 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I strongly oppose the safe-guard of land to the south of the airport for an additional runway. The UK has already decided on a hub at Heathrow. Our household was unfortunately one of many adversely effected when Gatwick changed the flight paths in 2013. Even though we are located more than 30 miles from the airport, this change resulted in us being unable to sit in our garden or have our windows open in the evening during the summer. The noise was intolerable, and has only been reduced due to the incredible work and tenacity by local groups forcing the airport to think again. The change incidently was made without any consultation and the board at Gatwick even tried to tell us that nothing had changed! So I’m afraid that I have absolutely no confidence in their management whatsoever. Gatwick is not a good neighbour. They were forced to engage with the public, but then failed to act on what they were told. The airport knew the impact without doing anything to mitigate those negatively affected. So unfortunately it makes me very wary of anything they say. My objections are listed below. 1 Noise and Wellbeing This application takes no account of the need to balance growth with the environmental impact. Use of the emergency runway makes the issue of environmental noise impact; lack of adequate surface access and air pollution even harder to resolve. Use of the emergency runway also creates safety concerns if the main runway is out of action. The increase in use, and for that peak capacity to be spread, will bring increased concentration of flights making an already unsustainable situation worse. This change along with the one in 2013 constitutes a 23% increase in overflight. The effect of 60 air traffic movements per hour and peak spread will make air traffic controllers direct aircraft to join the final approach in a more concentrated pattern further from the airport. Thus we as homeowners will be in an even worse position than we were in 2013. Unable to use our gardens during the day or have our windows open at night. There is also a risk of spill over from the daily schedule into the night period. We had to close the bedroom windows on several occasions at the height of the summer holidays again this year as we were unable to sleep due to the noise. Then couldn’t sleep as no air and too hot!!!! . The planes were passing overhead at barely two minute intervals. This was between 1 and 2 am. Totally unacceptable. This is currently without the expansion. I do support sustainable growth at the airport. 45 flights an hour would allow for maximum dispersal, and growth based on sustainable year round use. A full airspace change should be required. Gatwick should adhere to the World Health Organisation guidance; provide a noise protection scheme; noise insulation for homes; compensation for loss of amenity.They must protect and compensate all residents for the disruption. Not just those within a small area around the airport. 2 Pollution Climate scientists are currently warning of the necessity to reduce carbon emissions and prevent permanent damage to the planet. This plan does not recognise the severity or proximity of that threat. The skies above our village are constantly filled with vapour trails. There is no such thing as a clear sunny sky anymore. Very evident during lockdown. This was the first and last time we had clear skies. Contrails contribute to global warming by absorbing and trapping solar radiation from the sun within the Earth's atmosphere, where it would have otherwise travelled back into space. There is agreement within the scientific community that these global warming impacts of contrails and contrail-induced cirrus are proven. Thus the increase in air traffic will cause permanent damage to our planet. The M25 and M23 and the Southern Rail routes to London for work and leisure are already at full capacity. They will be unable to meet the increased number if passengers. Infrastructure improvements that are listed in the 'Master Plan' are designed to deal with the recent increase in passenger numbers rather than future increases. I hope you take my objections into account.