Representation by Sarah Evans
- Date submitted
- 12 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I strongly object to the Northern runway proposal at Gatwick airport. I live in Cranleigh and I am already impacted by noise from flights, particularly at night and early mornings. The current aircraft noise nuisance is sufficiently loud and frequent to disturb sleep and impact on my enjoyment of my garden. The reasons for my objection are: 1. The negative impact of further NOISE on health and quality of life of residents impacted by flight and airport noise. For many years the airport and airline industry have been operating a noise reduction strategy. This is to be commended and must meet its objective to reduce noise impact on residents. It should NOT be cited to cynically ‘offset’ the increased noise associated with this proposal. Noise reduction is a future aspiration dependent on new technology and replacement aircraft. The noise models presented in this proposal rely on assumptions around future noise levels (as yet unachieved and outside direct control of Gatwick Airport as reliant on improvements by the airline industry). A worse case scenario should be used for assessing the impact on noise nuisance for this reason. There is an increasing number of residents impacted by aircraft noise due to the increase in population in the South East which has not been considered in the models. There are also more people working from home so impacted for a greater period of time. It is unacceptable to increase levels of noise without due consideration to the impact on the health and quality of life of local residents and without the support of the local population. 2. Secondly, I wish to object to the proposal for ENVIRONMENTAL reasons. The UK government is seeking to reach net zero to reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change. The UK government should be actively striving with all industries to meet this ambitious target, including the airline industry. It is vitally important that due consideration is given to this over riding responsibility. This proposal is incompatible with the UK net zero target. 3. The impact on LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE will be substantial and has not been fully addressed in the application. The roads are already heavily congested and in a poor state of repair and train services and stations are overcrowded. Increasing airport throughput will place an extra burden on already stretched infrastructure and solutions are not in place to manage this extra demand. Costs of road maintenance will increase, traffic delays will impact local people and businesses and increased air pollution will have health consequences. Further built surface will reduce the ability to mitigate flood risk, which is already considerable in the vicinity of the airport, as evidenced by previous storms such as Storm Dennis. An increasing level of chaos will occur when the airport is forced to close (weather, terror threats, strikes etc) due to more passengers/flights impacted - how is this to be mitigated? I do not support building additional capacity at an already very large airport due to the extra demand placed on local infrastructure. 4. I do not accept that there is evidence of DEMAND for this expansion. Changing human behaviour patterns on travel demand have not been fully considered in the proposal, particularly post Covid changes which may well become permanent changes in working patterns. These behaviour changes include increasing concern over climate change threat (likely to increase further as climate change becomes a reality). This is likely to reduce the number of trips made, particularly short trips such as weekends away or short business trips as these will either be considered not in line with personal values or can be successfully conducted remotely (or by greener transport methods). Modelling on demand should also consider post brexit impact on flights in the Schengen area due to the new limits on time allowed in the area by UK residents. This may alter behaviour, especially of holiday home owners, and reduce demand for flights particularly in the winter period. Cost will also impact demand, including airport taxes which are a lever towards achieving net zero, and the higher cost of travel due to inflation. There is little evidence that UK residents are demanding further airport capacity and, until and only if this is clearly expressed for example through local MPs, this fact should override any business reasons for expansion due to the major negative impacts of expansion outlined above. 5. Fifthly, I object to the expansion on SAFETY grounds. There is a large and increasing population in the vicinity of the airport and any proposal which impacts national risks (see national risk register) should be very carefully assessed. For example assessment of impact on risk of terrorism, cyber and state threats, accidents and system failures, environmental hazards, pandemic threats, societal threats and conflict. The proposed increased capacity will increase some of these risks and impact due to, for example, more air traffic, higher numbers of people in transit, or deliberate targeting as critical infrastructure. The collective impacts on national risks have not been fully considered in this proposal and should be detailed for the planning authority as these may be significant and difficult to mitigate. For these reasons, I strongly object to this proposed expansion of Gatwick airport.