Representation by CPRE Surrey. Tadworth and Walton R A (CPRE Surrey. Tadworth and Walton R A)
- Date submitted
- 27 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Non-statutory organisations
We object strongly for several reasons Climate change and sustainability Swiss researchers from the Paul Scherer Institute and ETH Zurich show that even if biofuels and green hydrogen are used, future airlines will not be carbon neutral by mid century. We urgently need to reduce air traffic volumes if significant changes to the climate are to be avoided. The recent increase in flights agreed at Luton airport is irresponsible. Any increase at Gatwick is similarly unacceptable. Given the already proposed increase in air traffic, researchers calculate that by 2050 CO2 emissions from aircraft alone will account for 20% of the overall climate impact. They state air traffic must decrease by 0.8% annually. In addition account has to be taken of the impact of burning aviation fuel such as the release of particulate material and nitrogen oxides which will also contribute to greenhouse effects. Clearly the increase in the number of passengers and thereby flights from 32.8 million passengers to 75 million is completely unsustainable and must be stopped. The national net zero target of 1.5% increase by 2050 will only be met if emissions are halved by 2030. The Committee on Climate Change has been quite clear that there should be no net expansion of UK airport capacity unless there is clear evidence emissions can be reduced. As shown above, this cannot be achieved. Infrastructure Highways We note that there will be a 33% uplift in highway trips proposed between 2018 and 2032 and a 35% increase, 18,500 more passenger parking spaces, proposed on site. This is very unsustainable. Although there are local mitigation measures proposed, which will result in loss of local biodiversity and increased air pollution, together with increased congestion and travel times, there are no proposals for the wider area. More employment is proposed as well as the onsite parking, yet no measures are proposed for the very congested A217 approaching Reigate and into London, nor for the A23 where it approaches Redhill and beyond. These roads are already at over capacity at peak periods. The M25 and to a lesser extent the M23 are also at capacity for much of the time. Both CPRE Surrey and the Tadworth and Walton Residents Association are concerned at the adverse impact on the already overloaded Surrey highway system. Rail There is no evidence that schemes already planned or delivered will accommodate the envisaged increase in rail traffic. At present there is limited capacity on the main line with standing room only at peak periods. There is concern that local stopping services will be reduced to accommodate the increased Gatwick demand. This is unacceptable or the local population. Flooding There have been major problems along the Mole and its tributaries in recent years. With the extreme events/ heavy rain now being experienced in association with global warming, the measures proposed at Gatwick will be inadequate to accommodate the additional flow. It is our understanding that already emergency reservoirs have filled before heavy rainfall and so have not fulfilled their purpose. Noise pollution Although much is made of quieter aircraft, there is limited information on how quickly these will be introduced and the likely noise levels. There will be far more flights and more intensive use of flight paths. Information is not yet available on which areas will be affected but there will be disturbance over a wider area. Already many communities around Gatwick suffer excessive noise levels. Air pollution The area around Gatwick already suffers from air pollution. The increase in fine air particulates is likely to be above WHO limits and so there should be no net increase in emissions. The economic justification Much is made of the increase in job numbers and prosperity which will result from the expansion. However, not only is there full employment in the area and no need for more jobs but latest evidence shows that the promises are spurious. A report by the New Economics Foundation dismisses the Gatwick case. The original case for allowing more business flights is no longer valid as the growth in business travellors has effectively ceased. Any increase is likely to be in the leisure business which benefits the better off British residents rather than foreign visitors. It will also be detrimental to domestic tourism as well as leading to a cash outflow, and thus detrimental to the British economy. These arguments are set out in greater detail in the paper 'Losing Altitude the economics of air transport in Great Britain'. It also makes the case that the amount of employment generated by the aviation industry is diminishing over time and it is one of the poorest job creators in the economy pound for pound due to automation and savings. The jobs are also often poorly paid. and apparently since covid it is difficult to attract workers as the airport is not seen as an attractive place to work. In the past the Government has argued that the boost to the UK economy outweighs the environmental harm, and it is very sad that this is the argument used over the Luton airport expansion. However, we hope that with the new evidence that instead of bringing in £1 billion investment into the S E ( which is the one area overheating and not needing new investment) there will be recognition of the considerable harm to the environment which could reduce the existing economic attractiveness of the area. Impact on the environment Much of the area around the airport is either Green Belt or protected countryside. There has already been a considerable amount of new development in the wider area leading to an adverse impact on the infrastructure and services as well as loss of biodiversity and protected Green Belt. The creation of an additional 10,000 jobs would lead to pressures for 10,000 more houses leading to considerable harm to the infrastructure and open countryside. CPRE Surrey is very concerned at the increased pressures which will result from any expansion for new housing development in our protected areas. National implications In our opinion, there should be no expansion of air traffic in the UK. However, if , despite all the evidence against expansion, particularly because of climate change, it is decided that there is a need, this should be further north, - Manchester of Birmingham. Around London, we have Stansted, Luton, London airport, Heathrow and Gatwick. Luton is to expand and Heathrow is likely to expand. There is no need for additional capacity in this area. Strategically, and in terms of 'levelling up', central or northern England are in need of new investment not the overcrowded S E. Conclusion This is not just a matter of moving a runway12m. There are serious implications for global warming and more locally of an overloaded infrastructure, problems of increased air and noise pollution and potential loss of biodiversity and treasured landscapes. Gatwick's prosed expansion should not be allowed to go ahead.