Representation by Mrs Elizabeth A Lockwood
- Date submitted
- 26 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I have lived in the Lingfield area since 1989. Since then, except for the downturn in the national economy in 2008 and then for the duration of the Covid lockdown, there has been a steady increase in the number of flights into Gatwick. The large "cap" for night flights for Gatwick causes disturbance all through the night time which has impacted my own health and that of my children, especially when they were very young. During the day, the frequency of the flights continually interrupts everyday life - listening to the radio or TV is not relaxing, sitting in the garden in the summer is impossible. My previous home in the parish of Lingfield, was originally not under any flight path (arriving or departing) but in 2014, became newly overflown. As the ambient noise levels in this largely rural area are very low, the frequency of the flights is annoyingly loud but I chose to move into the village to retire to a house which is walking distance to the amenities. Some houses in Lingfield are entitled to help with sound insulation but the boundary identifying the eligible houses is in my opinion, unfair to more than half the houses as in places one side of the street can get the grants but not the other side. It wouldn't stop the noise getting into the house when I have the windows open in the summer or through other parts of my house, like my roof. The noise is worse for easterly departures as the planes are vectored quickly so I am under planes at full throttle, which are turning, adding to the noise levels. I know it is possible to control the flight paths for noise mitigation even for departing. It has been done for arrivals - the planes coming in straight and at a steady descent, have a quieter and slower landing. The ones that are turned in "late" often have to put flaps up to slow down faster and all the planes which drop their undercarriage before they need too add to the volume of the noise by at least 3dB. This is significant when more than half the planes are doing this because they are approaching on a turn and need the additional drag to slow down for a safe landing. I can just about bear the current situation during the day. I think there should be no flights, save for exceptions - emergencies only - at night for at least 6 hours. The proposal to expand will add the number of flights over my house and it is not justified when government policy is for reducing carbon emissions. The local transport infrastructure can hardly cope with the existing passenger demands. The train into London is not physically able to carry any more passengers during the day and increasing the number of night flights to accommodate the numbers is unacceptable. Most of the increased passenger numbers will arrive at Gatwick by road. The M23 and M25 connections are already at capacity. The network of feeder roads is also already completely congested, especially the A22 and the A264. This impacts our everyday journeys to work and school, especially if there is a problem on the M23, which as a "smart" motorway, is unable to keep traffic moving for even just broken down cars. Gatwick will need additional supplies and is also proposing to increase the freight carried by the long haul flights. All this is brought in by HGVs which damage the roads faster and add to the misery of congestion. Staffing will be an issue. The surrounding areas does not have significant unemployment. Any workers on the lower pay scales won't be able to afford the local housing costs, and there is a significant shortage of "affordable" and social rented properties. These new workers will need to be bussed in - which is already happening - baggage handlers and hospitality/retail staff are often on Zero Hours contracts and can't afford to live locally. Even a pilot for Easy Jet is earning less than £23,000 a year - too little to get a mortgage on properties here. The average price of houses in Lingfield starts at £475,000 (from Zoopla 2023). The pilots I know that lived in Lingfield have moved out not just because of the noise, but because of the lack of job security and low incomes forcing them into cheaper areas further away. Gatwick has not been particularly good at controlling the noise pollution form the airport. I am especially worried about the finer particles which are not extensively measured and due tot he prevailing winds from the south west, all of Gatwick's pollution is blowing to the heavily populated regions of south London and north west Kent. The additional traffic including from the increased diesel trucks supporting the growth of the airport, adds to the mix of toxic pollution which is known to harm everyone but especially the young, the very old and the vulnerable. Lingfield's population is 21% over the age of 65, the national average is only 16% (2021 Census), which means we have more vulnerable people who are in the direct catchment area of the source of ill health. Gatwick has already achieved a significant amount of growth over the last 15 years, through increasing the number of flights, airlines using the airport and mechanisation of many processes, to increase passenger through-put. It should be noted that this growth has taken place through permitted development and without any mitigation provided for the local communities which are negatively impacted. The proposal to move the existing "northern" runway 12 metres to the north to allow safe departures all through the day, is not making best use of existing runways. It is the building of a completely new runway in a different location, with the consequence of having to relocate significant amounts of built form to other parts of their site, including the air traffic control tower and the fire station. It is going to build over vast swathes of open country side for additional parking spaces, all of which adds harm to the local biodiversity and importantly adds additional run-off to the local drainage network. The area floods very frequently and along with the local water and power supply which is inadequate to support the existing airport capacity, there will be more power cuts and floods, including foul water and sewage. Government policy was also to have the additional runway capacity at Heathrow and there is nothing I have seen anywhere in the application materials that provides any evidence that the so-called economic benefits will outweigh the huge harms to the residents under the flight paths, the people using and living near the congested roads, the local and wider environment and CO2 emissions for Britain. As a former geography teacher, interested in all matters pertaining to the environment and planning, I wish to be able to present further evidence in objection to this damaging and poorly justified proposal to build a new runway in the South East.