Representation by Nicholas Peers
- Date submitted
- 23 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I cannot put this better than Plane Wrong's summary - Noise - Expansion of Gatwick would significantly increase aircraft noise both for those living near the airport and for those further away under flight paths. Plane Wrong supporters are affected by Departure Routes 3 and 4. Think about the effect of many more aircraft overhead every hour. Gatwick’s submission with respect to noise relies very much on the introduction of quieter aircraft and larger aircraft carrying more passengers. There is little evidence to support those assumptions. Road Traffic - 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. Increased road traffic and congestion, traffic noise and air pollution will be a major problem throughout the area between the M25 and Gatwick where the roads are unsuitable even for the current volume of Gatwick traffic. Nothing material is proposed in the application to fundamentally change the existing poor road and rail connectivity. The effect on local infrastructure and our communities would be wholly unacceptable. Just think about how much more traffic will flow through the area as passengers come off the M25 to avoid jams on the M23. Climate change and air pollution - 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. Expansion of Gatwick would therefore have a material impact on the UK’s ability to meet its carbon reduction targets. The pollution caused by increased road traffic would be unacceptable and a huge capacity increase of the rail networks to the airport would be required. Carbon emissions will also result from construction works which will take many years. Flood Risk - Over the years the River Mole has caused flooding on many occasions, especially when Gatwick discharges water in extreme events. Climate change is making these extreme events more frequent and severe. Think about the effects of all that extra concrete producing surface water to flow into the River Mole. Expansion of the Airport needs to take this into account. This application deals with flood risk on the airport and immediate vicinity in great detail but does not do so for the effects downstream. Need - Gatwick is competing with Heathrow, Luton and Stansted and indeed other regional airports for a bigger share of the leisure passenger market. Bringing all those extra passengers to Gatwick will have a huge adverse environmental effect on our villages and countryside. The only people to benefit will be Gatwick shareholders. Gatwick’s overall case does not comply with the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) which requires airports (other than Heathrow) that are seeking to expand to demonstrate sufficient need for their proposals, additional to (or different from) the need which would be met by the provision of a Northwest Runway at Heathrow. The four London airports already handle almost 70% of UK air traffic. Increasing that percentage is unnecessary and totally contrary to levelling up. This must be Gatwick Airport's 3rd or 4th attempt to expand their operations during the 39 years we have been living in Redhill. All previous attempts have been turned down. I am not sure why Gatwick Airport believe they can win this time around? What do they think might have changed to make this particular application more likely to succeed? If anything it should be less likely. Climate change wouldn't have been as high up on the list of concerns from the public when one or two of their previous applications were made, heard and turned down. I believe it would be highly questionable, and deeply contentious if this latest application to expand was to be approved. Thank you for reading.