Representation by Kieran Mitchell
- Date submitted
- 8 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Dear Sirs I am writing to express my very grave concern about the proposal to convert the existing taxiway at Gatwick into a second main runway. You will undoubtedly be aware that Gatwick had already proposed that a second runway be built and that, in 2015, the Airports Commission decided that a further runway should, instead, be built at Heathrow. It is apparent that the owners of Gatwick are unhappy that they didn’t get what they wanted subsequent to that review and are now endeavouring to have a second bite of the cherry, with flagrant disregard for all of the reasons why Heathrow was considered to be the better site. To be clear, I am firmly of the view that there should be no additional runway at either site. At a time when we are all committed to reducing our carbon footprint, the suggestion that we should be adding another 80,000 flights a year (or 250,000 in the case of Heathrow), simply to line the pockets of a few greedy investors is absurd. Indeed I understand that the approved Heathrow development is currently paused because in fact post-COVID, post-Brexit and at a time when everybody is or should be taking responsibility for reducing their own contribution to the climate crisis, there is simply no need for the additional flights to be made available. I have never heard anyone becry the lack of capacity at either airport because is simply isn’t a problem. Turning then to Gatwick specifically, it’s abundantly clear why Heathrow was considered a better site to expand (if one accepts that expansion is needed at all) and why expansion was not considered appropriate at Gatwick, and that is simply down to the location of each site, and the infrastructure that is in place. Heathrow is located in a busy suburb of London. It is an area that already has a lot of vehicular traffic, and the various terminals are already well served by both the M25 and M4 motorways. It is apparent, thus, that any expansion is not going to be transformative to the area. It is a busy area that will remain busy. By contrast, whilst Gatwick is well served by the M23, it sits adjacent to pristine countryside, an area that is a haven for local wildlife. Whilst I understand the proposal is to fit the development more or less within Gatwick’s existing footprint, that is only part of the story. The substantial increase in vehicular traffic will, without doubt, cause significant disruption to the local environment and will cause devastation to large pockets of the local fauna - again, something that is very much at odds with addressing the climate challenge we face. From a human perspective, the villages and hamlets that surround Gatwick are largely peaceful, quiet places to live. People have chosen to live in those places because of those qualities. Already, the roads through Brockham, Leigh, Newdigate and Charlwood are used as a cut through by an increasing number of vehicles seeking to avoid the ‘long way round’ on the motorway. Those roads are, however, narrow and windy and not in great condition. They were never built to withstand heavy traffic, and they will be unable to cope with the increased demand placed upon them by the proposed expansion. I have seen nothing in Gatwick’s proposal that seeks to pre-emptively alleviate concerns over local infrastructure. All that appears to be of interest is access from the motorway, something that ignores the reality of where large numbers of local travellers come from, and the routes they take. It is abundantly clear that the purpose of expansion is simply to make money for a select few, to the detriment of local people. Whilst anonymous investors reap the rewards of the environmental damage caused, local people will suffer, both qualitatively, for the reasons given, and quantitatively, when property is devalued by the ruination of the local area. It might be the case that expansion will create some jobs (though the proposal provides limited detail as to what research has been undertaken into the actual need for additional jobs in the local population), there is simply no greater good here, that outweighs all of the harm that will be caused. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Sincerely Kieran