Representation by Frant Parish Council (Frant Parish Council)
- Date submitted
- 27 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Parish councils
Frant Parish Council object to the proposed plans to expand the facilities at Gatwick Airport (‘the Airport'). The Parish of Frant in East Sussex lies just outside Royal Tunbridge Wells and comprises the villages of Frant, Eridge and Bells Yew Green and their environs. The Parish is already significantly and adversely affected by being in proximity to the flight path and, as above, wishes to object, on the following grounds. The Parish of Frant is under the flight path and is already seriously affected by the relentless stream of flights overhead. This is exacerbated by the frequency, stacking and flying altitudes of overhead aircraft. Further, there is no moratorium on flights overnight, as there is at Heathrow Airport. Local residents are thus subjected to noise from aircraft 24 hours a day. Upon attending meetings and exhibitions arranged by Gatwick, our councillors have been told they must have ‘sensitive hearing’ and should ‘shut their windows’ – this is clearly an unacceptable response to a serious problem encountered by our local residents, amongst them the young, vulnerable, elderly and infirm. The Council is aware of WHO research which indicates that noise is an underestimated threat that can cause a number of short- and long-term health problems. These include sleep disturbance, cardiovascular impacts, poorer work and school performance amongst children and teenagers, impaired hearing, etc. Noise has emerged as a leading environmental nuisance in Europe and the public now complains about excessive noise more often. Indeed, complaints to the Airport from residents of nearby Royal Tunbridge Wells have risen dramatically, even within the last year. The Council considers the health and well-being of local residents to be a key priority and this WHO research is thus very telling. With 80,000 extra flights planned annually within 10 years, further expansion at the Airport would obviously result in more noise and emissions. Although the Council acknowledges that some aircraft are getting quieter, this is a slow process and any benefits of this advance in aviation technology could be offset by the expansion in the number and frequency of flights. In addition, as the frequency of flights increases, planes will likely fly further toward the east, affecting the Parish and its environs to a greater extent. It is understood, too, that with advances in navigation precision, greater concentration of aircraft can now occur, resulting inevitably in noise being more concentrated above the location beneath. In addition, there is concern about what will happen when there are delays. It is likely that these delays will have knock-on consequences for flights overnight - already a serious problem between 9pm to 12am. This would be particularly evident during the summer months when air traffic movements (ATMs) intensify. The increase in intensity of use to 60 ATMs an hour and for that peak capacity to be spread throughout the day will bring increased concentration of flights over an extended period making the situation worse for the residents on the ground. Some of the worst noise emitters are the summer budget airline flights that land throughout the night and have older engines so that you can hear the back thrust as they start to descend. Increasing the already burdensome and significant noise pollution our residents suffer would be intolerable. It is noted that the Masterplan does not contain any proposals for how this problem would be addressed. It is already an issue that should be at the forefront. If any growth at the Airport were to take place, it should be matched by a directly proportionate reduction in noise, emissions and other local and more widespread impacts. Also of serious concern to the Council of any expansion would be the inevitable environmental impact on our very sensitive area. This includes the important designation within the Parish of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) - a status which warrants protection from the noise and pollution impacts of air (and other) traffic. Such pollution will continue to affect local wildlife and biodiversity and the Council is aware of the ongoing concern about the serious affects of nitrogen dioxide levels on nearby Ashdown Forest, which is now known to be damaging its foliage and reducing plant growth. These lowland woods and scrublands are a natural a habitat for breeding birds. Excessive noise impacts the birds’ instinct to settle in these areas as they cannot hear other birdcalls. There is, of course, the inevitable increase in pressure on local roads (eg around Crawley, etc), major roads such as the M25 and M23 and rail networks that would result from rising passenger numbers arriving at or leaving the airport. The Council does not consider such expansion and utilisation of this safeguarded land is necessary or justified, particularly in light of the Airports Commission having selected Heathrow for a new runway. Given this, it is unacceptable that this land has been withheld from the possibility of other forms of development since 2006, a period of some 15 years. If the Airport is seriously concerned about generating local economic prosperity, the current area safeguarded for future expansion at Gatwick should be released and put to more locally and regionally advantageous use and allow local residents to move on from the constant threat of airport expansion and all that this would entail. It is not a tenable position to suggest that an expansion of the Airport would result in direct employment (and thus economic) benefits locally. The local area around the Airport is not an employment area and nor are areas like Frant Parish, which is essentially a group of villages within the AONB. Apart, perhaps, from the scenario of the odd one or two local residents who might take up employment at an expanded Gatwick, there would be no local economic benefit. Indeed, this would be a good example of where employees are actually not sourced from the airport’s immediate environs but commute in; an unsustainable position and against government policy. At the draft masterplan stage, it was suggested that the majority of shareholders are derived from overseas; it is thus not a stretch to suggest that, in turn, the majority of economic benefits could be felt outside of the UK but at the expense of serious environmental impacts on local communities. The Council is not aware that any current noise monitoring undertaken by the Airport extends as far as the Parish of Frant or its surroundings. Given the impact that aircraft noise is currently having on our local residents, properly recording this impact would a be a first option. Ideally, such monitoring would be undertaken independently of the Airport and, armed with the results, local mitigation measures by the Airport could be proposed and adopted. In essence, however, the Council understands that the most tangible gains have already been made in terms of reducing the noise output from aircraft and that any future gains will now be less tangible, indeed will be marginal. The Council also notes that the Airport’s own research shows that there has been no material reduction in noise levels since 2010. Thus, the Council considers the only real way in which to control noise pollution is to resist expansion and resolve current issues related to frequency, stacking, altitude and so on. As well as the Airport itself operating as carbon neutral, the carbon emissions of aircraft clearly need to be reduced and the pollution and congestion associated with additional passengers and staff travelling to and from the airport properly monitored and mitigated. To operate in accordance with Government policy, the Airport must first ensure that environment impacts arising from the use of the existing runway are properly considered and militated against. The Parish Council welcomes all community engagement where it is inclusive, meaningful, accessible, transparent and where it has longevity. The effectiveness of such engagement should be regularly reviewed to ensure the above objectives. The value of community engagement should be apparent in changes the Airport makes over time to reflect local opinion. There appears to b very little evidence to show that community engagement is given more than lip service by the Airport. Aviation is the only public service that remains unregulated and it is the Parish Council’s view that there should be an independent regulator who has a statutory obligation to take into account the impact of the airport on the environment and the lives of people who live under the flightpaths. It is widely acknowledged that the current surface access to the Airport is poor and unsustainable. There is already considerable pressure on the local and major road networks and the rail networks are inadequate in terms of capacity, frequency and connectivity. Expansion would serve only to exacerbate this without robust change, funded by the Airport. The Council does not consider that the Surface Access Strategy addresses adequately the very real prospect of serious further pressure on the local transport network in this region. The Council considers that the Airport should first address the serious impacts resulting from its operation now, before considering expansion with very little justification for doing so, particularly given that it is Heathrow Airport that has been identified for growth. Instead of expansion, the Airport should invest in measures, examples of which might include ensuring stacking occurs off shore so that planes only enter our skies when there is an immediate landing option, emulating the pre-2013 flight path, swathe and distribution, implementing Continuous Descent Approaches resulting in higher flying altitudes and speeding up the modification of aircraft to reduce noise so that benefits can been redeemed as soon as possible by people on the ground. The Airport’s presumption in favour of growth should, in order to be fair, be compared with a ‘do nothing’ option. Liaison with community groups, the government and all other interested parties should be escalated with a resolve from all that growth – when it is justified – should only be permitted when there is proportional mitigation in place to offset any negative impacts.