Representation by Benjamin Matthew Sellers
- Date submitted
- 28 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I adamantly oppose the expansion of Gatwick Airport's Northern Runway and any further expansion plans for Gatwick. I reside in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, relishing the uninterrupted vistas of the picturesque Kent countryside, which took me 20 years of hard work in the smog of London to save and be able to afford my beautiful secluded house, all to savor the tranquility it offers. The ceaseless cacophony generated by low-flying planes bound for Gatwick amounts to nothing short of torment. Each night, I hope for a change in wind direction to grant me some respite. During the summer and holiday seasons, I find myself awake, counting planes passing directly overhead every 1 minute and 37 seconds! Only a pandemic provided a temporary escape from this unending noise, as planes vanished from the skies and peace reigned once more. My attempts at producing Vlogs and Podcasts are consistently hampered by planes flying perilously low and far too frequently, despite investing in top-notch equipment and setups. I recently took my children to the British Wildlife Centre in Lingfield to view the 40 species of animals they care for. Rather than feeling sympathy for their captivity, I pitied them for enduring the fumes and deafening noise. The planes pass so frequently and at such low altitudes that it feels as though you could reach out and touch them. I can only imagine how residents closer to Gatwick must feel. I urge the decision-makers to visit these Kent areas (the Garden of England!) to truly comprehend the daily and nightly intrusion. Only then will they refrain from proposing such thoughtless and unjustified plans. What guarantee can you offer that, due to your proposals, planes will not continue to traverse the skies above my property and those of others every two minutes, day and night? From the beginning, I've emphasised that no single area should bear this burden. In the context of our ongoing mental health crisis, COP 26 and 27, noise pollution, air pollution, and the climate crisis, future planning must prioritise the human and environmental impact over financial gain. The airport has failed to demonstrate a genuine need for increased airport capacity that aligns with government policy as outlined in the Airports National Policy Statement. Employment and economic considerations Gatwick's claims of job creation from the project are deceptive. Even its consultant, Oxera, acknowledges that the project is not expected to yield significant national-level job growth. Any local or regional job gains would likely come at the expense of other regions, contradicting the government's leveling up agenda. Gatwick's evaluation of the economic benefits and costs of the proposed project relies on indefensible or outdated assumptions, as well as oversights and errors. Rectifying these issues would substantially alter the overall benefit-cost analysis of the scheme. It's probable that the scheme, in reality, exhibits a negative net present value, making it a highly unattractive proposition from a public interest perspective. Climate considerations The government's climate advisors have made it clear that there's no rationale for additional airport capacity in the UK, and any net expansion would have unacceptable climate consequences. Expanding and growing Gatwick would elevate the airport's CO2 emissions by nearly 50% from 2018. Gatwick's emissions, which were less than 1% in 2019, would account for over 5.5% of total UK emissions by 2038. Such an emissions increase would significantly hinder the UK's ability to meet its carbon reduction targets, contradicting government policy. The airport lacks credible plans to mitigate these emissions because effective low-carbon aviation technologies are not currently available. Additionally, Gatwick has not evaluated or quantified the non-CO2 effects of its projected growth based on the latest scientific evidence. It must also report its emissions using the most current government carbon value figures. Any expansion at Gatwick should be contingent on the achievement of a substantial and progressive reduction in the overall climate impacts facilitated by the airport, starting from a 2019 baseline. This reduction trajectory should be independently monitored and enforced. Community and noise impacts Growth at Gatwick would inflict severe consequences on local communities and residents living under flight paths, including increased noise, greater road and rail congestion, deteriorating air quality, and devaluation of properties under flight paths. Gatwick's analysis of the noise impacts of its expansion proposal is deliberately misleading and inconsiderate. Its noise envelope suggestions do not align with CAA guidance, are inappropriate in terms of metrics and limits, fail to comply with government policy, and lack proper enforcement mechanisms. Furthermore, these proposals have been introduced without the necessary stakeholder consultation mandated by the CAA, contrasting with the approach adopted by other airports. Conclusion The airport's propositions in each of these areas and more are unacceptable. It would be entirely inappropriate to permit CO2 increases and other adverse climate and community impacts on the scale proposed to facilitate expanded leisure travel, primarily benefiting frequent flyers. I emphasize that there should be no expansion at Gatwick, including the establishment of a Northern Runway. Among other issues, the plan provides a mistaken and misleading impression of the necessity for the development, relies on projections inconsistent with the Airports National Policy Statement, contains substantial errors and omissions in its economic analysis (misrepresenting the benefits and costs of the proposed development), and distorts the noise impacts of the proposed development. For these and other reasons, the proposal to construct Gatwick's Northern runway should not progress any further. There are viable and equitable alternative solutions. Sincerely, Ben Sellers