LETTER: Gatwick Airport is big enough

I refer to the County Times article page 30, May 29, ‘Views wanted on flightpath plans’.
Your lettersYour letters
Your letters

It is not correct that ‘the proposed departure routes... are designed to affect fewer residents’. The routes are designed for the sole purpose of increasing the number of aircraft that can land and take off, so that the owners of Gatwick Airport can increase passenger throughput and their profits.

Gatwick management claim they want to minimise noise for as many people as possible and have put their three options out for consultation. However, their claim is disingenuous. It is like someone building a new (noise equivalent) open-air heavy-metal rock concert venue and then asking local residents which way the loud-speakers should face in order to minimise the noise pollution!

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Noise is an insidious and significant pollutant which can lead to adverse health effects including poor sleep quality, tiredness, difficulty in concentrating, irritability, anxiety and depression - especially when people are subject to unwanted aircraft noise at least 17 hours every single day of the year.

As can be seen from the consultation maps and experienced during the current flight-path trials, all three flight-path options would minimise noise for very few people (ironically those living under pre-trial flight paths; many of whom chose to do so) and would increase noise for thousands more people (those who chose not to live under pre-trial flight paths).

The only way to minimise annoyance for as many people as possible is to retain the pre-trial flight-paths. That would still allow for a significant increase in air traffic but it would limit the detriment to residents.

The County Times report said the change to flight paths is ‘totally separate from the second runway debate’ but they are implicitly connected. A second runway would be a kilometre nearer to North Horsham residents and would certainly require a new flight path close to North Horsham and it would enable Gatwick Airport to reach its goal of handling nearly three times as many aircraft and passengers - with all the noise and air pollution and road traffic congestion involved.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

According to the www.gatwickairport.com website, in 2011/12 there were 242,498 take-offs and landings, averaging 664 flights per day (about 1 every 1.5 working minute). The busiest day was 22 August 2008 with 895 (35 per cent more) aircraft movements (which begs the question of why they need more capacity) 34.2 million passengers (averaging 93,700 every day) and 23,500 on-airport jobs.

A good number of that current total of 117,200 people each day will have travelled to and from the airport using road vehicles; vehicles which add yet more pollution throughout the airport catchment area, and increase congestion on our roads - and the owners of Gatwick want to triple that. Gatwick already serves more destinations than any other UK airport and is the best connected point-to-point airport in Europe.

This airport expansion will not create significant numbers of jobs for local people. It will create a large migration of people to the Gatwick area. With unemployment in West Sussex running at 2.4 per cent (source WSCC 2011), the reported thousands of new jobs ‘created’ would inevitably largely be filled by newcomers to the area, requiring thousands more houses to be built. We do need some new jobs, as could be provided by local small-to-medium enterprises, but nothing on the scale arising from a second runway. Any financial benefits for local people would be minimal if not non-existent.

Unlike locally based businesses, profits will not reach the local economy to any significant extent. Gatwick Airport is owned by a group of international investment funds, many of the airlines are also owned by companies based outside the UK. Foreign based companies will export their profits (and probably ‘minimise’ their UK tax liabilities). In the meantime the local community will have to suffer the costs of infrastructure maintenance and pollution.

Gatwick is big enough. See www.gacc.org.uk

C. MORRIS

Tennyson Close, Horsham