Representation by R Wells
- Date submitted
- 27 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Dear Sirs, I strongly object to any further development of Gatwick airport for the following reasons: - Two runways do not currently exist. Gatwick must rebuild the emergency runway (i.e. not use it as currently existing), plus numerous new taxiways and onsite infrastructure, to enable it to become a safe 2-runway airport. - Huge construction will be required for the new runway, taxiways, hotels, offices, roads and infrastructure. All bring with them carbon footprint and nightmare construction traffic for residents. - A 2nd runway would add over 1 million tonnes of extra carbon a year, plus other greenhouse gases, soot, and vapours. Gatwick continues to ignore this pollution in its plans. Gatwick 2 also ignores the housing/storage of alternative fuels and the rising cost of fuel (both fossil fuel, and the cost of a greener fuel which is estimated to be 3 times the current costs, once developed). There is no silver bullet to an alternative fuel, say aviation, which is set to continue burning fossil fuel for the foreseeable future. The Government advisory body, the Committee on Climate Change, called for a stop to all airport expansion (June 2022) and continues to warn the UK Government of not meeting carbon reduction targets (October 2022). - Gatwick 2 ignores the new Environment Act that includes air quality as a major consideration. Gatwick already has a problem with the small PM2.5 particles that are released from plane tyres and roads. - Aircraft noise is a major issue for Gatwick, but Gatwick continues to mislead residents. The poor, complex, long (over 1,000 page) consultation in 2021 did not give Gatwick a mandate to go forward with noise envelopes (which are supposed to be legally binding). These are mentioned, but no further details are provided, and they do not cover the areas that are impacted today. They can also be changed to accommodate the modernisation of airspace (FASIS) which is currently under review, to allow for continued growth of the airport – many new flight paths are proposed, many of which are over new areas. Gatwick is already designing this modernisation based on a 2-runway airport – this is very misleading for residents as Gatwick 2 states no new flight paths. - Gatwick offer a Noise Envelope as a guarantee of the noise that residents can expect with 2 runways, but this does not cover the area recognised by Gatwick as to be impacted the most by the significant increase in plane movements. - Areas of AONB ignored: Gatwick would not be allowed to construct a motorway on land through Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but it is allowed to construct a motorway in the sky above our heads which means that human and animal habitats are being destroyed by aircraft noise and pollution. The tranquillity in AONB’s has already been shattered by planes flying at less than 4,000 feet over rural areas, depriving residents and animal habitats of sleep and tranquillity. - Noise at night: Gatwick is one of the very few European airports which operates at night without restriction. Heathrow has to cease flights operations at night, but not Gatwick, whilst all mainland European cities also shut their airports at night. Gatwick already causes significant noise nuisance at night across the AONB areas of southeast England (often with flights passing overhead every 3 minutes in the middle of the night). What will the European Court of Human Rights say about this when this is challenged? - Ban night flights: A ban on night flights should be a condition of any expansion at Gatwick. The airport should also be required to set out a comprehensive package of measures to incentivise the use of the quietest aircraft at night outside the hours of a ban. - Nothing has changed since Gatwick was turned down in favour of Heathrow expansion by the Airport Commission in 2015. Gatwick sits on a single arterial road (M23) and a single railway line that can’t be expanded. - The new road infrastructure proposed for Gatwick 2 benefits Gatwick Airport but does not benefit the residential roads and lanes, with the vast increase of passengers, workers, and freight movements which will overflow from the major routes to avoid congestion. Gatwick offer cycling and walking as ways in which they will reduce carbon travel to the airport, yet it is currently too dangerous to cycle to work at the airport or through the airport. - There is no taxpayer funding for further rail improvements of the Brighton Line. Recent improvements were designed to improve daily usage and not to accommodate a 2-runway airport. The taxpayer paid for the new Gatwick station but now, with the drop-off fee, Gatwick Airport is pushing traffic to feeder rail stations. - Gatwick has always struggled to fill jobs, and this has not changed. They now look for workers in far-reaching areas, from where they cannot cycle or walk to work, as proposed by Gatwick 2. With the salaries offered for most jobs, workers struggle to buy or rent a house close enough to the airport to walk or cycle. - Gatwick is recognised to be reducing jobs through automation (baggage handlers, air traffic control, check-in), so the promise of new jobs is not what it seems. - Gatwick’s proposals present a false economy to workers and residents. With recession and downturn of the economy, Gatwick Airport is hit the hardest due to its business model of leisure travel. Crawley Borough Council has recognised this and is now looking to greener industries to bring jobs and stability to the county, rather than being too reliant on Gatwick Airport that is seen as a volatile sector. - Gatwick struggles now with one runway – Gatwick Airport and its airlines are currently struggling to effectively run a decent service for passengers with a one-runway operation. What makes them think that they will do any better in operating a two-runway airport? - Gatwick claims to want to be the largest airport in the UK, serving 80m passengers flights per annum – 70% growth and larger than Heathrow. There is no argument to support this excessive ambition to fill our skies with over 386,000 aircraft movements per annum. - Last week the CAA approved Gatwick Airport's FASI South Initial Options Appraisal. If implemented Gatwick's proposals are likely to create noise sewers both east and west of the airport. Specifically: o Each of the single track arrival options Gatwick has proposed would subject overflown communities to many times the number of aircraft they experience today. The impacts on those communities would be profound. Quality of life would be destroyed. There would be substantial health and mental health impacts. Property values would collapse, without compensation. Astonishingly, neither Gatwick nor the CAA has acknowledged, let alone considered, any of those impacts. o The very few multi-track options Gatwick has retained would have less profound but still significant impacts on overflown communities. Again these have not been considered by Gatwick or the CAA. Some of these options also overfly large communities, such as Tunbridge Wells, and other areas below 7,000 feet but outside the LOAEL contour. But no account has been taken of people in these communities, because they are not considered by the airport or the CAA to be affected by aircraft noise. - This project is being driven by aircraft industry capacity aspirations rather than taking into account the impact that these plans will have on the communities over which they will fly. On the basis of the above this application must be rejected in its entirety and a ban on night flights implemented.