Representation by Stephen Hanks
- Date submitted
- 7 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am opposed to the Gatwick Airport New Runway Plan for the following reasons The application is in fact for a new runway. The existing emergency runway is to be relocated. Presently the emergency runway cannot operate concurrently. I question the need for such a runway at Gatwick. Gatwick competes with Heathrow, Luton and Stansted and other regional airports for a share of the leisure passenger market. There is existing capacity in other airports to provide expansion of the market. That being subject to evidence there is such an expansion need. I submit that Gatwick’s case does not comply with the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). This requires airports (other than Heathrow) that are seeking to expand to demonstrate sufficient need for their proposals, additional to (or different from) the need which would be met by the provision of a Northwest Runway at Heathrow. Expansion of Gatwick will significantly increase aircraft noise for communities near the airport and for communities such as mine which are currently adversely affected by noise on departure Routes 3 and 4. Increases in such traffic will be added to the existing detrimental effects. Gatwick’s intended noise mitigation is heavily dependent on the introduction of both quieter aircraft and larger aircraft capable of carrying more passengers. Any such noise reduction would be minimal the Gatwick submission provides little or no evidence of significant noise reduction. New technologies are still at an early experimental stage and will not be available in the foreseeable future. Noise reduction is at best an aspiration and remains unproved. I am concerned about pollution and resultant climate change. Gatwick flight operations already cause significant C02 emissions. The scale of expansion will significantly increase the levels. Currently there are no technologies for reducing aviation emissions to any acceptable scale Gatwick’s targets to increase how many people will access the airport are insufficient to prevent a massive increase in road traffic around the airport. This will result in an increase in road traffic, congestion, traffic noise and air pollution in a wide area beyond the immediate area of the airport. The M25 and Gatwick roads are already operating at over capacity. Nothing material is proposed in the application to fundamentally change the existing poor road and rail connectivity. The effect on local infrastructure and communities will be catastrophic. The pollution caused by increased road traffic will exacerbate the additional pollution resulting from flight operations. Gatwick indicate an intention to reduce road use to access the airport. This intention is contradicted in the submission by their intention to provide additional parking and improve the road infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Expansion of rail access is not possible there being no capacity to increase track to carry the vast increase in passengers. While accepting the construction works would be finite it will never the less be a long term project resulting in significant levels of Carbon and related emissions. I am unable to rationalise how this expansion project would do other than have a material impact on the UK’s ability to meet its carbon reduction targets Issues concerning flood risk arise concerning the River Mole. Gatwick discharges water in extreme events. Climate change is making extreme events more frequent and severe. The effects of the extra concrete producing additional surface water to flow into the River Mole will be a significant issue.The Expansion proposal deals with the issue on the airport and immediate area but not but does not do so for the effects further away. Bringing such extra passengers to Gatwick will have a huge adverse environmental effect on our villages and countryside. The only people to benefit will be Gatwick shareholders.