Representation by Parham Family (Parham Family)
- Date submitted
- 28 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I believe the Airports Commission “unequivocally and unanimously” selected a new runway at Heathrow over expansion at Gatwick a few years ago and this decision was overwhelmingly endorsed by Parliament. So I now ask the Planning Inspectorate to reject the Northern Runway Project to block the proposed second runway and further significant expansion at Gatwick. The four London airports already handle much of the UK air traffic – airports with existing capacity should be developed instead. Has Gatwick’s case complied with the Airports National Policy Statement that requires airports seeking to expand (other than Heathrow) to demonstrate sufficient need for their proposals? I detail below the issues that my husband and I are concerned about and the impact on our lives: NOISE Expansion of Gatwick would significantly increase aircraft noise. Our (redacted) very close to Gatwick; aircraft noise impacts him and the other clients and staff at his residential care home each and every day. Gatwick needs to address the noise issues already caused by growth to date – not expand. The frequency of aircraft flying identical flight paths has made life intolerable for our family and many other residents – the aircraft noise can be relentless and the associated air pollution a serious concern. The Holmwood community has already been subjected to an increasing and unacceptable noise level in recent years as the number of flights into and out of Gatwick has increased. This has been further compounded by flight path changes (Routes 3 and 4), PNR, on-going breaches of the NPR and aircraft flying low over populated areas. To increase the frequency of aircraft movements as the proposals outline, would increase the noise to an intolerable level. It would result in relentless noise not only for the residents but visitors who wish to appreciate the areas of natural beauty - without noisy aircraft flying at low altitude. Gatwick’s submission regarding noise is reliant on the introduction of quieter aircraft and larger aircraft carrying more passengers. Is this really going to happen especially as larger, heavier aircraft have a larger turning circle (NPR will be continually breached) and are slower to ascend (thus causing more noise for a greater duration)? TRAFFIC More flights, enlarged infrastructure and increased airport servicing requirements will result in considerably increased traffic on the surrounding roads. These roads are unsuitable even for the current volume of Gatwick traffic and already suffer major congestion. Rail connectivity – sadly the service offered by the rail companies cannot be relied upon and a huge capacity increase of the rail networks to the airport would be required. AIR POLLUTION The pollution and impact on air quality generated by infrastructure construction, increased road traffic, and significantly more flights is of serious concern. Expansion on the scale proposed would increase very substantially the CO2 emissions and other climate effects associated with Gatwick’s operations and flights. FLOOD RISK If Gatwick Airport expands, even more open land will be covered in tarmac, concrete and the like preventing surface water to be naturally absorbed into the ground. The impact of climate change is causing extreme events to be more frequent and severe and the River Mole has flooded on many occasions. I understand Gatwick discharges water into the River Mole if the airport and immediate vicinity is at risk of flooding. But what happens to the land and communities that live downstream of Gatwick - flooding wrecks people homes and lives. The local economy should not be dependent mainly on the airline industry. Volatility within the airline sector (the Covid Pandemic is one such example) can have a detrimental impact on the local employment and businesses in the surrounding communities. I am sure there are other issues that will affect our day to day life should the planning for this major expansion be approved but I hope we will be able to contribute these at later date. We thank you for taking our significant concerns into account when considering this application for a Development Consent Order.