Back to list Gatwick Airport Northern Runway

Representation by Ramblers (Sussex Area) (Ramblers (Sussex Area))

Date submitted
24 October 2023
Submitted by
Non-statutory organisations

Sussex Ramblers oppose Gatwick Airport’s application for a northern runway for the following reasons. 1. The applicant claims that it is a development of an existing runway but Gatwick does not have 2 runways that I can be operated concurrently today. So as such it is a new runway which does not comply with the Government’s Aviation Strategy.  2. The additional 101,000 flights a year (to a cap of 386,000) will cause a substantial increase in aircraft noise. Near Hartfield in East Sussex 15 miles east of the airport, we already observe planes passing over every 2 minutes on summer evenings. 3. The quality of the extensive network of public rights of way that surround the airport is already greatly diminished by the noise of low-flying aircraft landing and taking off. Residents, visitors and walkers around Charlewood village, Glovers Wood nature reserve and the Sussex Border Path long distance trail will all suffer significant reductions in enjoyment. 4. Gatwick is served by a single trunk road, the M23, which is already overstretched with traffic. The huge increase in freight, passengers and workers will cause a significant increase in congestion on it, and on lesser roads such as the A264 and the network of minor roads that are already used as ‘rat runs’. 5. Gatwick’s only major public transport link is the Brighton main line which is already at full capacity. Gatwick seeks to add an unacceptable burden to the line with over 32m extra passengers. 6. We face a climate emergency, and a new runway will add significant amounts of carbon and greenhouse gases. The decline in air quality caused by the increase in road traffic and of course the extra aircraft will cause significant health problems for many local residents. Building extra capacity to further increase fossil fuel use does not make sense in view of the climate challenges. We urge the Planning Inspectorate to refuse this application