Representation by Jane Lilley
- Date submitted
- 23 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Gatwick is proposing to built a second runway which is surely in contravention of the previous decision that any further runway in the south-east should be at Heathrow. And although it makes vague statements about mitigations, transition to Net Zero and community consultation, it has shown itself entirely unconcerned about the effect it has on the local community (among much else, it has made the railway station effectively a private one) and wider environmental concerns. Traffic: The railway is at capacity, which can apparently not be increased, and is anyway not a sensible option for many people. A large proportion of the extra passengers and employees will have to drive to the airport, adding to the already serious congestion, noise and pollution of local roads. Whenever there is a problem on the M25 or M23 various local pinch-points come almost to a standstill. Road noise blights those who live near the roads which are used by Gatwick traffic. I have a personal interest in the very high probability that air pollution from road traffic (and aircraft) causes lung disease in those with a genetic vulnerability. Parking: All the extra cars will have to be parked somewhere, occupying ever larger areas of land over an ever wider area. Housing: Most of the new jobs will inevitably be unskilled and low paid, but there is an acute shortage of housing which they will be able to afford in the immediate vicinity of the airport and in the wider area. Far from being able to walk or cycle to work, or even take a bus, most will have no alternative to driving, adding to the problems of traffic, air pollution and parking. Noise: Planes are quieter than they were thirty years ago, but still prevent peaceful enjoyment of our gardens, footpaths and commons. The proposed huge increase in flights would surely mean new flightpaths and hugely increased disturbance of local communities. At busy times those under the flightpaths already have a choice between being trapped indoors (double glazing reduces it somewhat) and suffering a low-flying plane every few minutes; this will inevitably become worse and affect many more people. Emissions: Planes cause substantial air pollution and there is no way to mitigate it; there is increasing evidence that this causes low-level inflammation and damage to everyone and serious lung damage to some. They add also substantially to emissions of carbon dioxide, which is rapidly overheating our planet, and there is no likelihood of alternative non-polluting fuels which do not emit carbon dioxide in the foreseeable future. This makes a nonsense of Gatwick’s statements that it is transitioning to Net Zero. It is presumably referring only to the activities of the airport itself, not the flights it is there to provide, and even for the airport it is doubtful that they will achieve zero net emissions without relying heavily on dubious greenwash mitigations. Gatwick should accept that flying will have to be reduced, not seek to increase it substantially. Ethics: Gatwick gives the impression that it is merely planning to make better use of an existing asset. In fact it appears that they propose to rebuild the emergency runway further from the current main runway, requiring demolition and rebuilding of almost everything on that side of the airport and causing extreme disturbance to nearby residents and those who live near the roads used by the associated heavy traffic while they do it. This is worse than underhand, and makes their opinion of the local communities abundantly clear. There is no possible reason other than corporate greed for increasing the capacity at Gatwick, and multiple reasons against it. The application should be rejected without leave to appeal.