Representation by Vanessa Henderson
- Date submitted
- 14 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I disagree with the plan to expand Gatwick’s capacity by utilising the emergency runway, for the following reasons: Noise: I live in Dorking and we are subject to flights coming from Gatwick that are already changing their flight paths from the agreed Route 4 to fly further north. At the same time we also experience stacking issues for Heathrow airport, and helicopter flights directly over our house from Redhill aerodrome. There is no night time curfew on flights at Gatwick Airport, and I have frequently been woken up by night time flying at 12.30 or later and 5.30 in the morning, in the summer when there are many more flights at these times, having the windows open means frequently being disturbed from sleep. The noise will obviously increase if this expansion is allowed to happen as aircraft movements are due to increase by 35%, also the noise envelope of the airport will increase. Roads and transport: There are no public transport infrastructure plans to cope with an intended 70% increase in passenger numbers to 46.5 million passengers per year. There are plans by Gatwick to increase the car parking within their own boundary by 55%. Therefore rural roads through Surrey will be utilised by increased car traffic to Gatwick Airport if this expansion goes ahead. Gatwick is not going to be contributing to the upkeep of Surrey roads, local government and tax payers will effectively be subsidising a private foreign company! CO2 emissions: If this expansion of Gatwick Airport goes ahead it will be generating 5.5% of all UK CO2 emissions by 2038. This airport is not the main freight hub. This huge emissions burden is predominantly for short haul European holiday flights. How is the UK going to meet its plans for net zero by 2050 by increasing emissions. Are the public being asked to cut down on their carbon footprint by changing to green vehicles, air source heat pumps, etc.,when airlines are burning huge quantities of fossil fuels which they pay no tax on. Gatwick Airport claims that they will be net zero, they are referring to the airport building and environs, not the huge increase in fossil fuels that will accompany this expansion. Pollution: There will be a huge increase in road traffic on all roads throughout Surrey with the proposed expansion of Gatwick Airport. This increase in traffic will obviously lead to increased pollution in a predominantly rural area. There will be increased pollution coming from aircraft emissions. Aviation is the main human source of ozone, which is a respiratory health hazard. Ozone at ground level is one of the major constituents of photochemical smog, it is formed through the reaction of gases in the presence of sunlight. Aircraft and ground support equipment release particles into the air. In a 2014 study at Los Angeles airport it was found that ‘Emissions from an International Airport Increase Particle Number Concentrations 4 fold at 10 km downwind’ ref: Environmental Science and Technology pubs.acs.org The expansion of aircraft at Gatwick Airport will lead to the need for greater airport hardstanding. This will mean more run off of polluted water into the sewage system. The increased passenger numbers will mean a vast increase in water demand and sewage. This area in the South East is usually one of the UK’s driest areas with high summer temperatures, and the summer usage of water outstripping water capacity. The demand is usually kept up by winter rain fall. Will this huge new demand for water and sewage processing be able to be accommodated? Thames Water was fined £3.34 million after admitting it pumped millions of litres of raw sewage into the Gatwick Stream and River Mole near Gatwick in 2017 killing thousands of fish. Is this company competent to deal with the increasing demand of an expanded Gatwick Airport? There are many chemicals used in de icing, and particulates from tyres of aircraft and servicing vehicles which will go into the sewage system. In a 2010 study made well before the recent climate change extreme rain events, the Gatwick Sub-region Joint Water Cycle Scoping Study Crawley.gov.uk states ‘The predominantly urban nature of Crawley, Horley and Gatwick Airport accentuates run-off in the Upper Mole Catchment Area, resulting in a ‘flashy’ catchment that responds quickly to rainfall events’. Obviously this is pointing to the potential for pollution events in times of high rain fall which due to climate change we are now experiencing. Employment: Gatwick Airport have claimed the benefits of expansion of the airport will lead to a huge increase in employment within the local area. The continuation of automation of much of the airport will not lead to huge increases in employment. There will be an obvious need for construction workers during the building phase, but given the high cost of housing I presume they will need to travel from other areas to fill this temporary demand. Devaluation of Property: I chose over 20 years ago to move to this area after suffering from road noise blight. My interest in this area was because it was green, beautiful and quiet, with ANOB’s nearby. I deliberately choose to live somewhere where I wouldn’t experience noise from low overhead planes. As a community in Dorking we had to push for a return to the Route 4 in 2014, after Gatwick Airport started to send planes in a more northerly flight path with the introduction of NPR. They claimed that planes were suddenly incapable of making the turns which they had done for many years! The return of air travel after the pandemic has lead to an increased level of flights into areas that previously were quiet. Including beautiful country areas which attract many visitors wishing to escape from London for the day and walk and exercise in the Green Belt. The Green Belt was created to stop urban expansion. Yet This planned expansion of Gatwick Airport will ruin the Surrey Hills and the peace and quiet that people expected to be able to enjoy here whether living, working or visiting. This expansion will lead to a reduction in property values, but no compensation. Why should a large proportion of people in the South of England put up with noise, pollution, over crowded roads and huge rise in CO2 emissions for a private equity company to earn huge amounts of money effectively subsidised by the tax payers of Surrey?!