Representation by Campaign to Protect Rural Henfield (Campaign to Protect Rural Henfield)
- Date submitted
- 19 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Non-statutory organisations
GLOBAL AND NATIONAL IMPACTS The context of the application is that the Government has already given approval for a third runway at Heathrow Airport, which is the preferred option to meet demand for the reasons set out in the Airports National Policy Statement (June 2018). There is no demonstrated need for both projects but the aggregate effects of the two proposals now need to be considered. This has not been done. For example, the National Policy Statement notes (at paragraph 5.271) that if a fourth runway were to be built at Heathrow, the Airports Commission concluded that “the airspace around the airport would be increasingly difficult to manage” and “that the airspace impacts would lead to reduced numbers of air transport movements at the other airports in the London area”. These same considerations might equally apply if an extra runway were built at Gatwick in addition to the third runway at Heathrow. There are also impacts on Britain’s ability to meet its climate change objectives, as set in the National Policy Statement (paragraph 3.61 onwards). The Airport Commission concluded that any one of the three airport schemes then under consideration could be delivered within the UK’s climate change obligations, via a mix of policy measures. However, this is not necessarily the case if both Heathrow’s third runway and Gatwick’s second were to proceed. The Gatwick Airport Master Plan 2019 takes no account of aircraft emissions on the climate emergency, focussing instead on the relatively trivial carbon emissions from airport operations (Figure 4.3), and merely expressing the hope that new technologies will make reduced aircraft emissions possible. Gatwick Airport’s Draft Master Plan Consultation Report (Section 4.4) hides behind the fact that UK Government’s “legally binding carbon reduction targets” do not directly include international aviation emissions, even though the Committee on Climate Change has interpreted the Climate Change Act as requiring the UK to meet a 2050 target which includes these emissions. The implications of the additional air travel stretch beyond the UK, affecting achievement of global climate targets and damaging the international positioning of the UK as a leader in tackling climate change. Within the UK, a project of this size has implications for the whole country. We are concerned by the adverse impacts Gatwick expansion might have on the wider UK in terms of transport, housebuilding, quality of life, economic development and employment opportunities. It will draw even more people into the south-east and exacerbate regional inequalities. These inequalities ought to be addressed in the context of the Government’s ‘Levelling-Up’ agenda and are not adequately considered in the topic-specific and regional assessments made. The UK lacks a coherent national strategy for change that joins up environmental issues such as climate change, air quality and water resources with housing and infrastructure needs such as transport, in the broader context of the ‘levelling-up’ agenda. In the absence of such a strategy, dealing with questions such as the expansion of Gatwick in isolation will inevitably lead to inappropriate and damaging development. The current plan to expand Gatwick is already outdated. It has been overtaken by climate change, the pandemic, and by aircraft technology which makes direct flights to regional airports more viable. Longer range aircraft now make it practicable to fly directly to and from more UK destinations, thus reducing journey times and carbon emissions in comparison with passengers needing a transfer flight or having to complete journeys over land. LOCAL IMPACTS The expansion means that more housing and road traffic will have to be crammed into the already over-crowded south east. Up to 60,000 workers and 80 million passengers per year will have to get in and out of the airport. There is not sufficient recognition of the impact that airport expansion will have on local housing markets or transport needs or community infrastructure. The National Planning Policy Framework tells local authorities they must produce local plans that look 30 years ahead but their vision would be undermined by imposition of such a major development. For instance, Horsham District would probably need much more housing than is currently being incorporated in the local plan. Potential traffic pinch points can be identified across the District but much more information is needed to make a viable transport assessment that could inform the local plan. Water Neutrality has been a major constraint on housing delivery in West Sussex and will become even more acute if the expansion of Gatwick goes ahead. More consideration must be given to labour supply and the impacts of the temporary construction workforce on demand and delivery of local housing. Particular attention should be given to the effects on rental and social housing. Proper mitigation is required to avoid negative impacts on the housing market. The Economic Impact Assessment needs to be expanded to cover all the districts touched by the Gatwick Diamond, including Horsham. The lack of a national vision of how we want Britain to be in 2050 and how the transport system will operate in the long term is making it impossible for local authorities to meet their legal obligations. Much more work is needed to establish how local authorities can be supported and what the impacts will be on local communities