Back to list Gatwick Airport Northern Runway

Representation by Sheena Boyce

Date submitted
27 October 2023
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses
  1. Congestion on the local highways network undermines quality of life The section of A25 that connects Dorking and Reigate passes through the centre of Buckland and the use of satellite navigation to avoid congestion on the motorway network invariably leads to traffic congestion through my village. Congestion in our local town centres already leads drivers to seek out alternative rural routes, and, as a result, local roads between the M25 and Gatwick Airport are increasingly seen as preferred routes. My local community suffers further congestion whenever traffic using the M25 between junctions 8 and 9 is diverted onto the local road network as the A25 through Buckland has recently been designated the preferred route. With the local road network airport already overcrowded and a very busy M25 I am concerned that any extra traffic will result in unacceptable pressure. The applicant claims any additional passengers will be encouraged to use public transport, but this doesn’t address the applicant's proposal to significantly grow cargo throughput, a proposal which the applicant acknowledges will significantly increase the number of cargo handler goods vehicles movements or explain why, given the applicant's claims about public transport, an additional 25,000 car parking spaces are included in the plan. 2. Adverse impact on local Health Services The applicant’s proposals do not seem to address the need to increase capacity within the local National Health Service - in our emergency hospital at Redhill and in our local doctors’ surgeries. With severe congestion already evident any additional congestion must surely increase the potential for accidents and any increase in personnel whether travelling, working at the airport or working in the support industry will increase pressure on local services. 3. Pressure on Water Resources The southeast is already short of drinking water and with very few reservoirs the pressure on local aquifers is already too high. With housing developments around Gatwick already on hold how can further development at Gatwick be allowed to take priority over the much needed homes that developers have been told cannot be built? 4. Air Pollution The applicant needs to be held to account to address the problems already highlighted in recent studies and reports and be required to demonstrate how its operations (current and proposed) will fully comply with World Health Organisation guidelines. 5. Noise The applicant’s submission relies on airlines to introduce quieter larger aircraft yet has failed to provide any evidence to support those assumptions. The applicant fails to recognise the adverse impact of noise, especially during the otherwise quieter night hours. Any increase in day time capacity should first be used to reduce night flights and create a “flight free night time window”. 6. Land Use The applicant admits expansion of the size envisaged will result in significant demand for additional housing and services to support the projected increase in population. These proposals seem to conflict with the UK Government’s stated priority for levelling up which favours directing investment outside the southeast. 7. Climate Change With National Policy targeting net zero by 2050, how can the applicant claim the proposals will comply with Government policy. I understand from briefings that the government’s climate change advisers have made clear that there is no case for additional airport capacity in the UK and that any net expansion would have unacceptable climate change impacts.