Representation by Andrew Lock
- Date submitted
- 18 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Having lived near a flight path for the past 23 years I have experienced a considerable growth in air traffic, the noise from which is amplified by the low level of background noise in this rural. The night flights regularly disturb my sleep and even a substantial investment in acoustic double glazing has not eliminated this pollution. Consequentially I am raising my objection to any further expansion of Gatwick airport as the activities of this anti-social neighbour has become intolerable. The fact that they appear to using subterfuge to put forward plans for a 25% increase in flight handling capacity without going through the usual formal planning process is undemocratic and gives a misleading and erroneous impression and little needs to change to accommodate this radical expansion. The emergency runway is just that and should remain so. It cannot be operated in the fashion requested without first demolishing the emergency landing and then building a new second runway. The two are completely separated by proximity and usage function. The only commonality is the misleading use of the word ‘runway’ for what is more appropriately described as an emergency landing strip. The site is already constrained by lack of access due to limits outside the applicant control; namely capacity on the train link and road network. I do not see any rational for the taxpayer to improve the infrastructure purely to accommodate the commercial wishes of a private and foreign owned enterprise. There should be an automatic presumption that any proposed increase in aircraft movements will not comply with the nations legal obligations for CO2 emissions. If the applicant is relying on technological breakthroughs such as sustainable aviation fuel, then their application should be deemed premature until such time as they have achieved the required reductions to enable expansion. There is already a lack of available workers in the Crawley area and no realistic prospect of addressing this without an increase in house building; which given the low income nature of many of the airport jobs, demanding proximity to their place of employment, requires these to be of an affordable nature. Land values in the south east, planning constraints and the number of dwelling being built already far short of demand makes this a non-starter. Will demand for multiple foreign vacations still exist if, as seems likely, governments of all countries will be forced to address the imbalance of duties which currently favours air travel in favour of more sustainable and less polluting land transport. On an economic standpoint I would argue any further expansion is to the detriment of the country’s balance of payments with other nations since the majority of its customers are UK citizens taking foreign holidays it is aiding the flight of wealth abroad. As can be seen, there are many factors with this proposed unfetterd expansion which Gatwick chooses to ignore as they are largely outside their control. I do not share their vision, nor wish to see the nation provide the very significant hidden subsidies to this foreign entity.