Representation by Victor John Ockmore
- Date submitted
- 19 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Noise - Expansion of Gatwick would significantly increase aircraft noise both for those living near the airport and for those further away under flight paths. The noise envelope Gatwick has proposed are not consistent with government policy and CAA guidance and are wholly one-sided. They should be substantially revised. Also, planes often fly over Crawley due to 'operational reasons' - I would expect this to happen more often if the airport is expanded, which is unacceptable. Night flights - A ban on night flights should be a condition of any expansion at Gatwick. The airport should also be required to set out a comprehensive package of measures to incentivise the use of the quietest aircraft at night outside the hours of a ban. Climate change and air pollution - Expansion on the scale proposed would increase very substantially the CO2 emissions and other climate effects associated with Gatwick’s operations and flights. There are currently no proven technologies for reducing aviation emissions at scale. Expansion of Gatwick would therefore have a material impact on the UK’s ability to meet its carbon reduction targets. Carbon emissions will also result from construction works and increased road traffic to the airport. Flights and traffic will make air pollution worse. Where we live, fumes from the aviation fuel can be smelled on many days in Spring and Summer, when people are outdoors more. Transport impacts - Gatwick’s targets to increase how many people bus, train, walk and cycle are insufficient to prevent a massive increase in road traffic around the airport. This increase in traffic would increase congestion on local roads and increase off-airport parking. Where I live we already have an issue with airport parking taking place in our road, which is already unacceptable and I would expect this to increase if the airport expands. Gatwick is not providing any extra rail services but the project will increase pressure on future train services, with the result that more passengers will have to stand on the mainline services between London Victoria and Brighton. Flood Risk - Over the years the River Mole and its tributaries have flooded, especially when the Airport and sewage treatment plants discharge water in extreme events. Climate change is making these extreme events more frequent and severe. Expansion of the Airport, and other developments locally, need to properly take this into account. Need - Gatwick’s overall case for expansion does not comply with the Airports National Policy Statement which requires airports (other than Heathrow) to demonstrate sufficient need to justify their expansion proposals, additional to (or different from) the need which would be met by the provision of a Northwest Runway at Heathrow. This growth at Gatwick will have a huge adverse environmental effect on our communities and countryside. The only people to benefit will be Gatwick's shareholders. Economic case - The economic benefits of expanding Gatwick have been overstated by Gatwick Airport Ltd. Significant economic, social and environmental costs have been ignored and/or understated. The economic benefits of air transport growth are subject to diminishing returns. In an already highly connected economy such as the UK, additional economic benefits from further expanding air transport are largely dependent on net inbound tourism and business travel growth. Both of these are absent in the UK today (more people fly on holidays overseas and business travel has flat-lined in the UK since 2006 as set out here). When Gatwick's scheme costs, benefits, and the long-term societal risks are taken into account, the scheme’s economic case no longer stacks up and entails unreasonable levels of risk to local, national and international wellbeing. In addition, the proposed scheme by incentivising UK residents to spend more overseas, this project will cost jobs and economic activity at home, particularly in the poorest parts of the UK, contradicting the government’s levelling-up agenda.