Representation by Rachel Starling
- Date submitted
- 28 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am against the proposed development for a number of reasons. This proposal is wholly unnecessary and not justified. It will lead to significant environmental impacts, which in many cases cannot be mitigated. It will lead to environmental degradation and significantly impact the Uks ability to meet its carbon targets. The current size of Gatwick along, with other major airports in the south is sufficient airline capacity. Promotion of air travel is an unsustainable mode of transport and investment should be directed to more sustainable forms of transport. The air strategy for the UK is flawed as aviation fuel should be taxed in the same way that car fuel is - this will avoid airlines being able to compete with other forms of transport. We need to stop subsidising the airline industry in the way that we do. The projected use of this airport is to stimulate business use. This is unsustainable and stimulation of this market is contrary to targets for reducing carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels as well as achieving net zero. Emissions for the UK after this development, project that 5.5% of all emissions will arise from this airport! This should be a reason to reject this proposal alone! It is contrary to our Carbon Strategy. Business travel demand has been shown to have reduced during the pandemic - people dont need to fly and can undertake business using remote technology. It is an outdated way of doing business, which is time consuming, environmentally damaging, expensive. We should be putting investment sustainable ways of doing business instead - green jobs. Im concerned that the development proposals are flawed, for 2 reasons; I - Terminus is not included in the submission With another runway and new airline stands, there will inevitably be the need for a new terminus, to accommodate the increase in passengers (and their commercial needs). This ironically not included in this submission!! Why not?? This should at least be considered as a cumulative impact from the development surely? To omit it completely is wholly inadequate. 2 - Poor level of assessment in some cases The range of impacts locally is significant. I am concerned though that the extent of assessment in some areas is poor, particularly in regard to flood, aquatic impacts on rivers, watercourses. Associated mitigation is inadequately defined. The same goes for air quality impacts. The basis for the assessment is poor and parameters to assess impact ill defined. The same goes for data on night flights - there is none! Research indicates that people are more disturbed by night flights than was previously thought. There is no data here! The assumptions made on the noise assessment in terms of aeroplane noise are also a best case assumption which in reality may be much worse. On that basis alone the community is not being given the full data in which to judge the impacts. Flying is not a sustainable form of transport, and we should be investing in high speed rail instead. I dont believe that short haul flights should be allowed, if there is an alternative train journey - as is already happening in France! The impacts on the road network are significant - both for the M23, M25 and local road network. With a significant rise in the use of the roads, I dont believe that the full scale of impacts has been adequately assessed and will be even worse that those predicted. Congestion, delays, accidents as well as carbon emission increases. The emphasis should be on providing sustainable travel connections, rather than reliance on car access. The M25 congestion that I experience at the moment will only be made worse with this development. The provision for alternative cycle lanes is wholly inadequate. There should be a wholesale integrated cycle network provided, so that local people can navigate around the area by bike and avoid having to use the congested road network. This system should be a state of the art system, to make access to and around the airport, to local town centres and to residential areas convenient for all users. The drive for growth in jobs and the economy at all cost is outdated. The environment is in crisis and we need to be changing what we are doing as it clearly isn’t working! Travel, for travels sake is outmoded. The number of jobs created by this development is poor in relation to the amount invested. We need to be investing in green, sustainable industry not polluting industry, that leads to more environmental impact. Actually the number of jobs is poor and is not a selling point for the development!