Representation by Andrew Clark
- Date submitted
- 28 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Registering an objection to the Gatwick Airport Northern Runway expansion proposals My wife and I are residents of South Park, (redacted) that runs through from Gatwick to Reigate and then on to London. For many years, we have lived with the significant impact of the airport on the Reigate area. The proposed expansion of Gatwick Airport, increasing flight movements and passenger traffic substantially, would, in our view, have a detrimental effect to our quality of life. There are a number of issues associated with Gatwick expansion that are exceedingly worrying and we want to ensure that these concerns are officially registered with, and considered by, the Planning Inspectorate. Our concerns can be grouped as follows: Adverse noise impact We accept living near to a major airport means there will be an element of noise pollution. However, the current set up sees air traffic from Gatwick, Heathrow and Redhill Airports converging over the Reigate area at once: 1. Gatwick departures by Route 3 or Route 4 These are the most noise damaging pair of routes that affect South Reigate with Route 3 travelling West as low as 3000ft and Route 4 travelling East from 4000ft 2. Heathrow departures In recent years, large numbers of departures have been moved to fly directly above Reigate from 6000ft simultaneously with the Gatwick departures 3. Redhill Airport arrivals & departures This involves take-off and landing by noisy light aircraft and helicopters at 1000ft If a second runway were to be created at Gatwick, close to Reigate, this would only add to the problem, impacting our ability to sleep due to near constant levels of aircraft noise pollution at all hours of the day. Impact on the road network Despite the M23 acting as the main route to and from Gatwick Airport, often this road is subject to heavy to traffic, and therefore passengers are forced to use the A217 as an alternative to reach their destination. Road traffic in the Reigate area is already extremely congested with limited scope for any expansion. There are frequent bottlenecks that are caused by the sheer weight of traffic, exacerbated by accidents and roadworks. Given that the town is also a major emergency artery for the NHS Ambulance Service to access the M25, the addition of a second runway and associated traffic would only exacerbate the problem – not to mention to the fact that this would inevitably negatively increase air pollution levels in the immediate area. No need for additional UK flight capacity From our perspective, it is clear that the argument for creating additional flight capacity in the UK is diminishing. The COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally shifted our way of life with the ability for business to be done over Zoom calls as opposed to having to attend meetings abroad in person. Add to that, the fact that there is increased awareness of the Climate Change crisis we all face, and the decision by Gatwick Airport to pursue airport expansion seems self-serving and unnecessary. Heathrow Airport have put plans for a third runway on pause as a result of both of the above issues so we cannot understand why Gatwick Airport Limited cannot also see the writing on the wall. In our view, the only winners from this project will be the shareholders of Gatwick Airport who are mainly foreign investors that have absolutely no interest in the Surrey/Sussex countryside or the damage their proposal would inevitably create. Potential impact on local authority budgets It is not clear from what we have read so far that the full costs outside the Gatwick perimeter have been considered. It would be typical in a project like this for the developers to seek to avoid external costs as much as possible with the expectation that local authorities and/or government would come up with the funding. Our fear is that there would be an expectation that local authorities surrounding the Airport would invest to provide supporting infrastructure to cope with the increased traffic passing through the region which feels entirely wrong when local authority budgets are already at breaking point across the country. We would like reassurances that Gatwick Airport Limited do not seek such grants from the taxpayer to support their plans. These are just a few of the concerns we have and there is no doubt that we will add further comments going forward. We welcome a discussion with the Planning Inspectorate to talk about our objections and to highlight the substantial local opposition to these plans in more detail. Many thanks, Andrew Clark