Representation by Andrew Simon Cadman
- Date submitted
- 25 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I have lived in Rusper for over 25 years and during this time Gatwicks attitude to local residents has gone from bad to worse. Disingenuous at best with mis-information and false marketing, more concerned with investor dividends than addressing local increased CO2, increased noise, environmental hooliganism, strain on local road and rail infrastructure, health issues due to particulates and the wider issues of climate change and the contribution aviation make to this. My life and my family’s day to day lives will be severely impacted by the planned second runway. The Gatwick application has fundamental flaws in most areas with poor modelling and unrealistic and naïve assumptions. Specifically I object to their application for a northern runway because it is a NEW RUNWAY: • It does not comply with the Governments Aviation Strategy, Gatwick does not have two runways it can operate concurrently today due to safety reasons – the second runway is only used in an emergency or when the main runway is undergoing repairs - it is a NEW runway being constructed to allow dual runway operation. It is a misinterpretation of policy – it is not current infrastructure – it is NEW. o It needs to be moved 12 meters North o Air traffic control tower needs to be moved rebuilt o Fire station needs to be moved rebuilt o Complete new taxiway needs to be built with complex traffic light system o New terminal needs to be built o 1200 construction workers employed for years • 100,00 + extra flights and an extra 32 million passengers places intolerable pressure on the local infrastructure, amenities and environment o Increased noise o Increased passengers and freight will cause road traffic/congestion on M23, congestion on local/residential roads and decline in air quality o Brighton Main Line cannot be expanded and increase in passengers places huge burden in line • Jobs are promised but these are in the main low skilled and volatile due to the nature of the airports leisure business – and they conveniently seem to have forgotten their pledge to reduce manual jobs and automate airport operations to increase efficiency • No affordable housing for increased workforce to live in and even if they wanted to walk or cycle there are no appropriate and safe walking or cycling paths. • Climate Emergency issues where the new runway will add significant amounts of carbon and greenhouse gases which will not /cannot be alleviated by new technology planes, fuel etc in the short or medium term Gatwick proposals do not appear to allow any additional investment from them to subsidise/pay for local infrastructure to support their growth plans. So only planning for the return and not the costs; • No money for Local Authorities • No money for M23 upgrade • No money for local roads and infrastructure • No money for sewage treatment • No plans or money for environmental damage, loss of habitat and diversity • No money for additional medical facilities to support an additional 32 million passengers passing through the airport • No money for local residents impacted