Representation by Ffion Thomas
- Date submitted
- 7 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
As a resident of Mid-Sussex, who already lives close to the current Gatwick airport flight path, I am deeply concerned about the detrimental effects of any expansion of Gatwick airport on local people and the environment more generally. I do not believe that any of the supposed positive benefits will actually be beneficial for people living in the region, and we will only suffer the negative consequences. Furthermore at a time when there is a desperate need to reduce atmospheric emissions in order to reduce the imminent consequences of global heating, increasing flight numbers is absolutely the wrong thing to do - we should in fact be significantly reducing flight numbers. Dear Sir/Madam I object to the proposal for a second runway/re-purposing of the emergency runway at Gatwick airport and the resulting increase in flights and traffic to and from the airport. I am a resident of Mid-Sussex, and am currently over-flown by planes from Gatwick. I am deeply concerned that any increase in flights to and from the airport will cause increased noise and pollution across the area, without any benefit to local residents. Increasing the number of flights at a time when we are seeking to reduce emissions from flights to avoid the worst excesses of global heating is completely wrong and very short-sighted - we should in fact be looking at ways of reducing flying and flights rather than increasing them. Increasing the number of flights at Gatwick would be in contravention of the UK's legal requirement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to net zero by 2050. The infrastructure around Gatwick is poor as it is, and an increase in workers to service an increase in flights will not be viable - there is already a huge housing shortage in the south east, and a lack of support infrastructure such as water provision (the south east being extremely water deprived), sewage infrastructure (local waterways are already heavily polluted by sewage outflows and sewerage systems that cannot cope with existing volumes), as well as a shortage of schools and doctors surgeries. Any notion that jobs will go to local people is unlikely to be realistic, as it is already difficult to fill jobs locally (there is a shortage of people generally, particularly for catering, service industry and manual work - based on my personal, recent experience recruiting locally). The type of low-skilled jobs the additional flight capacity will require, are not the type of jobs that local people will be willing to fulfil, and it seems likely that workers will have to be brought in from elsewhere, putting further pressure on local services and housing. There is also insufficient rail and road capacity to bring in the thousands of additional passengers envisaged. Traffic levels will increase locally, leading to increased pollution and journey times for local people - comments that the railway will take up this increase is also unrealistic given the lack of additional capacity on the main London to Brighton railway line, and a service which is already under stress, even with the current levels of passengers. I am also concerned that there will be detrimental effects on Ashdown Forest as a fragile and protected habitat - there is a legal requirement for the effects of any large infrastructure projects within areas surrounding Ashdown Forest to be adequately considered, and measures taken to reduce these effects. Have the effects of additional nitrate and other pollutant deposits from aviation fuel emissions on the SPA (Special Protected Area) and the SAC (Special Area of Conservation) of Ashdown Forest been considered? Has the increase in local traffic and potentially an increased local population and consequential effects on Ashdown Forest been considered? Has Ashdown Forest been specifically consulted? Overall, the local community will suffer all the negative effects of a second runway at Gatwick, with no meaningful benefits, therefore the second runway/change of emergency runway to a full runway should not go ahead.