Representation by Rebecca Bennett
- Date submitted
- 22 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I wish to strongly object to the proposed expansion of Gatwick with the development of a second runway. 1.Rail Infrastructure. Govia Thameslink Railway – which includes Southern, Thameslink and Gatwick Express – had the second poorest reliability in the past 12 months, with a score of just 6.4 per cent. The figures do not include trains removed from timetables before 10pm on the previous night, which also has a significant and hidden impact on the service actually experienced by passengers. As a regular commuter on the LGW to London line I am all too often let down by the provision and am embarrassed by the service and provision that travellers arriving in the UK have to suffer - cancellations, delays and overcrowding as they try to travel with luggage and their families. GAL have recorded that they believe that changes to the Thameslink service are already “providing adequate capacity.” This demonstrates how public transport is failing to deal with current demand let alone any expansion of passenger numbers. 2. Air quality monitoring data across a number of sites in the Heathrow area show concentrations are "routinely above or very close to exceeding air quality limit values” (Mayor of London) and is “greater than the maximum limit established for one year by WHO. A long-term exposure constitutes a health risk” (air.plumelabs.com). Heathrow currently handles around 60m passengers annually and suffers from this issue, the proposal to increase LGW passengers to 78m together with loss of political will to support the effective roll out of electric vehicles or extend ULEZ areas will dramatically impact air quality for the Gatwick area. There is increasing evidence of potential health impacts from both aircraft noise and aircraft-associated air pollution exposure to local communities around airports (Hansell et al., 2013, Lammers et al., 2020). Keuken et al. (2015) measured elevated particle number concentrations around 40 km downwind from Schiphol Airport. This is not just a problem to be considered on airport territory but has significant and far reaching impacts. It simply isn’t a solution to say that Heathrow air quality is already poor due to air and road traffic so let’s move the issue to another location. 3. Noise. Noise and its adverse impact on local communities is already acknowledged as a problem issue as evidenced by the appointment of Egis Group from 2016 to seek to ameliorate levels. They have achieved ‘some’ reductions (just 12% of 51dB+), but their reporting does serve to confirm the fact that planes are noisy and that management strategies are merely tinkering around the edges of the frequency and high decibel levels generated. Having already implemented some protocols I do not see that there is any alternative to the fact that the increase in capacity from a second runway will lead to a linear equivalent increase in noise that will negatively impact local people and communities. 4. Road traffic. In addition, the increase to capacity at LGW will increase road traffic and adds to the joint concerns around noise and air pollution. In this study “noise levels were measured at two locations near Gatwick airport (UK) in 2018–19” and found that “At both sites noise levels were above the recommendations by the WHO (World Health Organisation).” Both the construction phase and the additional road traffic in the entire region will be an issue. In Gatwick Airport Ltd’s (2018) own plans they “acknowledge that the road network would require some further upgrades, most likely to the roundabouts serving the North and South Terminals, no details are provided.” I am not able to find evidence of effective planning to manage road capacity across the South East to manage this issue. 5. Sustainability. “We are all facing a climate emergency, and many have now decided not to fly because they are aware of what flying is doing to the climate, aviation being one of the biggest threats our planet faces. No responsible owners of an airport should therefore be seeking expansion at this time, especially as a second runway would add over 1m tonnes (www.aef.org.uk) of extra carbon emissions a year, on top of that already produced from the main runway. Because they are rebuilding the emergency runway rather than building a brand new one, it doesn’t have to go through the normal national infrastructure planning process. This means that Gatwick gets a second runway by the back door, offering few benefits for surrounding communities, or the environment. Nearly 100,000 extra flights a year are proposed, with a huge increase in freight lorry movements to and from the airport, as well as transport of drop-in greener fuels (as there is no storage infrastructure at the airport)” (CAGNE, 2023). The PR tells us that its an investment of £250m to create many new jobs but I’m not satisfied that there has been an adequate investigation of how else that level of investment could create sustainable employment to keep Britain at the forefront of climate technology and solutions. The point of really addressing climate change and quality of life for our communities is not to keep doing what we’ve done before and expect, by some miracle, a better outcome. We should be innovating and moving forward in our thinking and actions.