Representation by Ifield Village Conservation Area Advisory Committee (Ifield Village Conservation Area Advisory Committee)
- Date submitted
- 28 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Non-statutory organisations
Ifield Village Conservation Area Advisory Committee (IVCAAC) Response to the GAL Development Consent Order for the Expansion of Gatwick Airport 28 October 2023 Introduction This response has been prepared mainly on the basis of the information in GAL’s non-technical summary. That document mentions impacts on conservation areas, but fails to mention two that are close to the airport: Ifield Village Conservation Area (IVCA) to the south of the airport and Rusper Village Conservation Area to the south west. IVCA is on the western edge of Crawley and abuts the countryside between Ifield, Rusper and Charlwood. It is about two kilometres from the southern border of the airport. I am writing from the perspective of IVCA. Pressure on road transport There are no major roads coming into Gatwick from the south west. Hence the country roads nearby (Rusper Road, Charlwood Road, Ifield Wood Road and Bonnets Lane) are already used as rat runs to the airport – especially at work rush hours. The pressure will increase on these routes. There are however no proposals for funds to improve their conditions or to repair the inevitable potholes and edge damage that will ensue. Another rat run is through IVCA itself, particularly along Ifield Green. This is understandable as the congestion through the many roundabouts in Crawley is severe. This rat-running is already at an unacceptable level – it will increase as the airport expands. The mitigations suggested concern only upgrades to the roundabouts near the airport. Have we missed something in our reading of the document? Noise Noise associated with the airport comes from several sources: take-off to the west-south-west (the predominant take- off direction); noise from aircraft movements on the ground; noise from other airport vehicles; aborted landings that can on occasions fly low over the area; night flights. The restrictions on night flights are not as stringent as they are at Heathrow. There is predicted to be an additional 105 million aircraft movements per annum which will certainly increase the noise pollution of the area. We understand that GAL have claimed that there will not be new flight paths (CAP1908) arising from the new runway. However, GAL is currently progressing with the government's Future Airspace Strategy Implementation South (FASI-S) programme and are seeking new airspace for a two-runway operation, so the situation may change. Water stress The south-east is already under water stress and much development has been curtailed because of the need for water neutrality to be achieved. The water demand from the construction alone will be large, not to mention the increase in demand from an additional 34 million passengers per annum needing water supplies while at the airport. How is resilience to water shortages being addressed? Waste water treatment We are aware that Gatwick has stringent management of the water that runs off the tarmac, including treatment to ensure that de-icing chemicals, fuel spills etc are extracted before the water is returned to the River Mole and its tributaries. The report also mentions the additional treatment facilities that will be needed for the expansion. However, the wastewater from the use of toilets, showers and baths at the airport and in the surrounding hotels does not seem to have been mentioned. This will go directly to the Gatwick wastewater treatment works (WwTW) to the SE of the airport or to the Horley WwTW to the north. Both these have been flagged up as ‘red’ i.e. up to capacity. It is unclear what mitigations are proposed for these and the source of the necessary funding. Air pollution There will undoubtedly be an increase in air pollution in the area. Concern is increasing over the damage that is being done by Fine Particles (PM10) and Ultra fine particles (PM2.5) to all living things. UFPs particularly get through the barriers in the lungs and into the fine tissues of the body. The level of such particles will increase from the increased traffic in the area (electric cars still shed particulate matter from the wear of their tyres). The burning of more aviation fuel will increase both the CO2 and NO2 in the area. There are also the aerosol droplets of the fuel itself. It has to be noted that from time to time the smell of the fuel in the air is apparent in IVCA. While everyone will suffer there is evidence that children suffer more from the particles from road traffic as they are nearer the ground. The number of incidents of asthma is on the rise, and we cannot rule out the contribution to its cause being from the increased air pollution that results from expansion of facilities like airports. There is of course the added problem of the air pollution that is present during the construction phase. Stress on the River Mole The River Mole will be the ultimate recipient of the treated water when it leaves the WwTWs. This river is already under stress from the large number of WwTWs on its length in its journey to the Thames and from the urban run-off which finds its way into the river. Even now there have been several incidents of discharge of untreated effluent into the river at times of heavy rain, which suggests that Thames Water is not coping. Is Gatwick confident that Thames Water has an adequately financed programme of improvement to remedy current problems as well as deal with further demand. If so, what is the time scale of the improvements and where is the land coming from to upgrade these facilities? Flooding Three sections of the Upper Mole Valley Flood Prevention Scheme were constructed about 10 years ago to increase the resilience of the area – and particularly of Gatwick Airport - to flooding. However, the fourth element of the scheme, flood retention in the Ifield area, was abandoned because of lack of finance. As a consequence, the resilience is not currently as high as originally envisaged. Lack of finance could again jeopardise the plans for the increased water retention ponds etc. necessary for the expansion of Gatwick Airport. The sufferers will not necessarily be those in the immediate area, but the villages, roads and towns to the north such as Horley, Sidlow Bridge, Brockham, Dorking and Reigate. Questionable benefits Given the scale of the development the financial investment will be enormous, not only in terms of money, but in terms of the carbon footprint. The carbon footprint associated with construction, maintenance and operation will be enormous. The carbon footprint of purifying and pumping water alone is colossal. With increased awareness of the impact of our carbon footprint on climate change, the future may well see a reduced use of air travel. A belief that there is always a technical solution that allows us to mitigate negative impacts on the environment, is one that is being challenged generally and certainly in relation to climate change and the need to reach net zero carbon targets. The so-called economic benefits predicted may well not be achieved as the industry could be seeing diminishing returns to its investment. In summary, IVCAAC is unconvinced that there is a strong argument for the expansion of the airport and will continue to follow the consultations. Jennifer Frost Secretary, Ifield Village Conservation Area Advisory Committee, on behalf of IVCAAC. (redacted) Please note I lived in Ifield Village Conservation Area for 49 years; hence my understanding of the area. I have only recently moved to the (redacted) address.