Representation by Noranne Griffith
- Date submitted
- 19 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object to the proposed expansion of Gatwick Airport and its proposal in respect of use of its emergency runway as a second runway. A second runway would add over 1 million tonnes of extra carbon a year, plus other greenhouse gases, soot, and vapours. Gatwick continues to ignore this pollution in its consultation. Gatwick also ignores the housing/storage of alternative fuels and the rising cost of fuel (both fossil fuel, and the cost of a greener fuel which is estimated to be 3 times the current costs, once developed). There is no silver bullet to an alternative fuel, say aviation, which is set to continue burning fossil fuel for the foreseeable future. The Government advisory body, the Committee on Climate Change, calls for a stop to all airport expansion (June 2022) and continues to warn the UK Government of not meeting carbon reduction targets (October 2022). Gatwick’s proposal ignores the new Environment Act that includes air quality as a major consideration. Gatwick already has a problem with the small PM2.5 particles that are released from plane tyres and roads. Aircraft noise is a major issue for Gatwick, but they continue to mislead residents. The poor, complex, long (over 1,000 pages) consultation in 2021 did not give Gatwick a mandate to go forward with noise envelopes (which are supposed to be legally binding). These are mentioned, but no further details are provided, and they do not cover the areas that are impacted today. Gatwick offer a Noise Envelope as a guarantee of the noise that residents can expect with 2 runways, but this does not cover the area recognised by Gatwick as to be impacted the most by the significant increase in plane movements. Nothing has changed since Gatwick was turned down in favour of Heathrow expansion by the Airport Commission in 2015. Gatwick sits on a single arterial road (M23) and a single railway line that can’t be expanded. The new road infrastructure proposed for Gatwick’s proposal benefits Gatwick Airport but does not benefit the residential roads and lanes, with the vast increase of passengers, workers, and freight movements which will overflow from the major routes to avoid congestion. Gatwick offer cycling and walking as ways in which they will reduce carbon travel to the airport, yet it is currently too dangerous to cycle to work at the airport or through the airport on the London to Paris Route 21. There is no taxpayer funding for further rail improvements of the Brighton Line. Recent improvements were designed to improve daily usage and not to accommodate a 2-runway airport. The taxpayer paid for the new Gatwick station but now, with the £5 drop-off fee, Gatwick Airport are pushing traffic to feeder rail stations. Gatwick has always struggled to fill jobs, and this has not changed. They now look for workers in far-reaching areas, from where they cannot cycle or walk to work, as now proposed. With the salaries offered for most jobs, workers struggle to buy or rent a house close enough to the airport to walk or cycle. Gatwick is recognised to be reducing jobs through automation (baggage handlers, air traffic control, check-in), so the promise of new jobs is not what it seems. Gatwick’s proposal presents a false economy to workers and residents. With recession and downturn of the economy, Gatwick Airport is hit the hardest due to its business model of leisure travel. Crawley Borough Council has recognised this and is now looking to greener industries to bring jobs and stability to the county, rather than being too reliant on Gatwick Airport that is seen as a volatile sector. Gatwick struggles now with one runway – Gatwick Airport and its airlines are currently struggling to effectively run a decent service for passengers with a one-runway operation.