Representation by Phillip Jemmison
- Date submitted
- 19 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object to the proposed plans to bring the northern runway into regular use for the following reasons: 1. The applicant proposes to enlarge the road network, ballooning the south terminal and Longbridge roundabouts. This is unacceptable that they seek to lay more tarmac and concrete for their benefit. I understand that they are expecting the taxpayer to fund highway improvements; the expansion will increase the value of the airport asset and therefore the applicant should pay for these works. 2. In relation to the proposed eastbound flyover at the south terminal roundabout: the existing section from the A23 spur onto the M23 spur eastbound is already chaotic, due to the mix of airport and local traffic merging. Local traffic of regular road users drive at the speed limit whereas airport traffic is slower, particularly mini-cab/Uber drivers and airport passengers unfamiliar with the road network. The proposed flyover will complicate matters further as traffic from the A23 spur will seek to move to the offside and airport traffic will seek to stay in the nearside lane. The dynamics of this cannot be modelled and it is regular road users like myself who understand the chaos and navigate it. Expanding the airport will introduce further vehicles on these roads and increase the chaos. In summary, adding the flyover with the proposed configuration will complicate traffic with so many conflicting moves in a short section of road. 3. At a fundamental level the existing runway should be used to better effect. The use of small aircraft, such as Easyjet and the airbus 319 uses as much runway capacity as a larger aircraft. Airlines should be mandated to use larger aircraft. Using Easyjet as an example if larger aircraft were used they would not need to operate three flights from Amsterdam to Gatwick arriving within 120 minutes as they will today (19/11/2023) at 1935, 2045, 2135. 4. The planet is at a climate emergency. The applicant suggests that the noise created by aircraft operations is reducing, but they have not stated that emissions from the burning of fossil fuel will reduce. A report by the CAA identifies that emissions at Gatwick Airport are projected to increase ([redacted]) and this is based on c35m passengers a year, but the applicant proposes to handle 75m passengers a year therefore emissions will exceed the CAA's projections. 5. The impacts on the environment are carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particle matter. The extent of these will all increase from the aircraft movements, additional traffic generated for people, freight and airfield operations, plus heating and cooling all of the additional airport buildings. This will increase pollution to those living near the airport and those under the flight paths. 6. The applicant may have modelled the impacts of transport generated incorrectly by using IEMA 1993 when they should have used ‘Environmental Assessment of Traffic and Movement’ (EATM 2023) issued by the IEMA. 7. Gatwick does not have a sufficient and resilient transport system. These proposals could increase the number of passengers by a minimum of 1,800 per hour (150 passengers on an airbus 319 x 12) and if 50% arrive and depart for their aircraft journey by rail, that is an extra 16 carriages of people per hour each way excluding staff. These carriages can only be added to existing rail services as the Brighton mainline is full and can only be unlocked with projects such as the Croydon remodelling, full resignalling, a flyover at locations such as Stoats Nest, remodel the junction at South Croydon to increase speeds on all lines, third rail electrification expansion for services to Reading and Uckfield (this will increase acceleration as these services interact the mainline at South Croydon to London). The rail network is for all of the population to use and not at the disposal of Gatwick, therefore the ability for rail users at East Croydon to board rail services in the rush hour is essential. Note that the rail network could be more efficient if there was one ticket price to London as it was pre-privatisation (c1993). Currently one rail franchise runs all three brands of Gatwick Express, Southern and Thameslink, a single price would distribute passengers more evenly than people avoiding the more expensive Gatwick Express. 8. Further rail services in the early morning are insufficient. For aircraft departures at 6am, travellers need to be at the airport prior to 5am and there is only two services from London in the two hours before 5am. The number of aircraft departures is proposed to increase. This creates an unacceptable situation of many people arriving by private vehicle which creates congestion in the airport terminals and the resultant pollution and these proposals will increase pollution further. 9. Gatwick is reliant on one Motorway, the M23 which is at full capacity during the rush hour. When there are problems on the motorway, or when it is closed for overnight road repairs, traffic is displaced onto local roads which are not suited for the level of traffic. This will only increase if the airport expands. 10. The applicant propose to increase the number of departures by repurposing the north runway. Therefore there will be more aircraft in the air that will then need to land. Has the applicant modelled how they will land all the aircraft, when this will only be permissible on the existing (south) runway. In my simple mind, in the morning the departures will be increased possibly by 50%, but landings in the evening cannot increase by 50%. It would be unacceptable to increase the duration of night movements as the noise will interfere with people sleeping near the airport and under the flight paths. 11. In my experience as a airline passenger, my flights are more often than not delayed due to air traffic control restrictions. I fail to see how the applicant can handle more flights without extra delays occurring if there is already insufficient air space.