Representation by Jonathan Wade
- Date submitted
- 12 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Main issues to be considered: The Gatwick second runway should not go ahead when the Davies review concluded that a single additional runway was required in the South-East and that runway should be located at Heathrow. Whether the Gatwick second runway is pitched for construction on the land to the south of the existing runway or to the north by expanding use of the back-up runway, the Davies review is still relevant. Stewart Wingate, Gatwick's owners and management team should abide by the conclusions of the Davies review and stop putting their own interests ahead of the nation's. Otherwise it puts the Davies review and all the taxpayers money that was spent on it into disrepute and sets a muddled legal precedent for future government reviews if they can be ignored and disregarded. The benefits of Gatwick expansion fall on a minor proportion of the population as 15% of the population are responsible for 70% of flights (Hopkinson and Cairns, 2021). Employment benefits also fall to local towns such as Crawley and East Croydon. However the main fallout is the noise pollution over West Kent to which Gatwick and NATS have a totally woeful track record of delivering any sort of equitable flightpath noise solutions due to the prioritising of commercial convenience above all else. Gatwick have demonstrated clear intent to dump all their increased flightpath noise from expanded operations over a minority of residents through concentrated flightpaths that extend well across the counties of Kent, Surrey and Sussex. In doing so they minimise the complaints whilst destroying the livelihoods, physical health and mental health of those unfortunately caught under those flightpaths who on current plans will enjoy zero compensation. Gatwick continues to be intentionally vague as to exactly where future flightpaths will lie. No second runway should be considered at Gatwick until detailed flightpath solutions have been considered and reflect genuine community consultation along with generous compensation packages in line with or exceeding those stipulated for ground projects as per the Land Act. Aviation is laxly regulated (outside safety) and laxly taxed. The financial business plan for Gatwick expansion would not add up if it was not for minimal regulation (outside safety) and a tax regime that is in no way equitable to that of trains or vehicle transport. For Gatwick expansion to go ahead it should agree to be subject to a regulatory and taxation system akin if not exceeding other modes of transport. Aviation is a major environmental polluter. The Jet Zero initiative will make no significant impact in the short to medium term on emissions and remains an industry publicity stunt to offset and distract legitimate concern on the impact of its operations. Gatwick expansion should only go ahead within a taxation environment of realistic "polluter pays" akin to that of other transport mediums such as cars.