Representation by Pauline Smith
- Date submitted
- 28 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Noise, noise and more noise. Following a number of changes since 2013 in flight paths, we already suffer far too much aircraft noise, rendering the garden unusable for long periods and being woken during the night and early in the morning together with noise all day long every day with no respite except for during Covid. Moving departures to the northern runway and moving it further north still will cause yet more blight in this area. Despite this the noise corridor diagrams provided do not extend to this area. A trick repeated from previous submissions by Gatwick! The only chart including this area suggests that we had 50 to 100 flights in July, yet we can have that many in two hours. Despite this and previous communications on this matter, we received no notification of any consultation from Gatwick. To almost double the number of passengers from 46 to more than 80 million [which is not an increase of 13 million as they suggest at one point] is outrageous. Any increase in numbers will also cause additional air pollution yet further reducing our quality of life. Secondly, it will increase the traffic issues already prevalent on our rural roads as the vast majority of passengers are unlikely to travel to the airport by limited rail offerings. Any congestion on the M25, which is a frequent occurrence, already causes traffic to move to rural roads in this area. The proposed changes to the roads around the airport including the M23 will cause further disruption and make many choose the rural roads as the only alternatives. I also note that the construction traffic management will be developed by GAL and their contractors which is unacceptable without local community involvement. Thirdly, the Mole, which runs through Brockham, is subject to sudden increases in volume and flooding after heavy rainfall. As it is downstream of Gatwick, it is most important that they do not increase the volume of water going into the water catchment area of this river. The flood risk documents do not inspire confidence that this will be done properly for the benefit of those downstream. It also appears to indicate they will be obtaining additional water from SES. As water is in short supply already and SES has imposed hosepipe bans on domestic users in the past, this is unacceptable. Gatwick should be obliged to collect and process rainwater on its many buildings for its own use and not impact local residents adversely in this manner. The benefits stated do not exist, except for the increase in profits for their foreign investors which they do not mention, whilst causing considerable harm to the residents of the surrounding area. Gatwick contributes little if anything to the Exchequer in the form of corporation tax. The proposed increase in jobs would actually be a problem not a benefit and will exacerbate problems of recruitment and retention for all other businesses in the area. I also note that funding for the project will include revenue from airport charges which they will no doubt increase yet further to do this instead of properly funding the project from their own resources and loans. Gatwick is already too large. People have commented to me that they feel they have walked to their destination given how far they are obliged to walk within the airport and to/from the gates. Newcastle, a much smaller airport, has recently been voted the best airport whilst Gatwick was well down the list. For so-called levelling up to be meaningful, the only airports to expand should be the smaller regional airports that struggle to compete with the economies of scale that London airports enjoy. As Gatwick clearly schedules more flights than it can cope with, especially during sensible times, a much more acceptable solution would be to move the excess flights to the regional airports with unused capacity, starting with removing the night flights.