GACC says the public misled by Gatwick’s “consultation” – with far higher figures in airport’s submission to Airports Commission
GACC (the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) has now studied the new runway plans announced by Gatwick Airport Ltd on 13 May. Brendon Sewill, chairman of GACC said: “They are horrendous – much larger in scale than in the recent consultation. The proposals will so infuriate local people that they will be determined to oppose the runway scheme at every stage. Any hopes that the airport may have had of building a new runway on time will have disappeared.” The new plans are set out in a 3,200 page document that has been sent to the Airports Commission but which has not been published. The Gatwick press summary shows that the new airport would be bigger than anything previously envisaged. The maximum number of passengers per year has gone up to 97 million compared to a maximum of 87 million in the consultation. That would make Gatwick much bigger than Heathrow today (72 million in 2013), and nearly three times as big as Gatwick today (35 million). The new plans show utter disdain for the 6,000 people who have visited the runway exhibitions during the past months “consultation”, and for the thousands more who have responded online. It is clear that Gatwick’s owners had already decided on their preferred option. GACC has been proved 100% correct it was a phoney consultation.
.
Tweet
Public misled
18 .5.2014 (GACC – Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign)
GACC has now studied the new runway plans announced by Gatwick Airport Ltd on 13 May. Brendon Sewill, chairman of GACC said: ‘They are horrendous – much larger in scale than in the recent consultation. The proposals will so infuriate local people that they will be determined to oppose the runway scheme at every stage. Any hopes that the airport may have had of building a new runway on time will have disappeared.’
The new plans are set out in a 3,200 page document that has been sent to the Airports Commission but which has not been published, denying residents a chance to examine the plans in detail. The plans were submitted even before the runway consultation was completed (closing date 16 May) thus treating over 6,000 residents with contempt (see below).
The Gatwick press summary shows that the new airport would be bigger than anything previously envisaged. The maximum number of passengers per year has gone up to 95 million compared to a maximum of 87 million in the consultation. That would make Gatwick much bigger than Heathrow today (72 million in 2013), and nearly three times as big as Gatwick today (35 million).
Pressure on road and rail
‘The plans would mean nearly three times as many people travelling to or from the airport by car or train. It is nonsense for Gatwick to pretend that this could be dealt with by actions such as longer trains and improving J9 on the M23.’
The number of new jobs attributable to a new runway has jumped up to 122,000, far more than the figure of 17,500 previously forecast by the airport. It is stated that these new jobs would be spread across London and the South East but inevitably most would be concentrated around Gatwick – where there is comparatively low unemployment. According to Sewill: ‘The result could only be large scale inwards migration, making the north-south divide worse. It would mean massive urbanisation and house building, and great pressure on hospitals and schools. Goodbye green fields.’
Public treated with contempt
The new plans show utter disdain for the 6,000 people who have visited the runway exhibitions during the past month, and for the thousands more who have responded online. They were asked to give their view on which of three runway options was the best – or least bad. But in this latest document there is no mention of any alternative options – it is clear that Gatwick Airport Ltd have gone for the biggest.
Option 1, a close parallel runway, has gone in the bin. Option 2, with the runways used alternately to provide respite, has gone down the drain. Perhaps they are mentioned somewhere in the secret 3,200 page document, but they are not mentioned at all in the current publicity splurge.
When the consultation was launched on 4 April, GACC described it as ‘Plush but phoney’ – phoney because Gatwick’s owners had already decided on their preferred option.
GACC has been proved 100% correct.
.
.
The Gatwick “consultation” document says 87 million passengers per year by 2050 and 513,000 air transport movements per year by 2050. Consultation document.
There were about 35.4 million passengers and 244,300 air transport movements in 2013.
The proposals now submitted to the Airports Commission are for 95 million passengers by 2050 and an additional 260,000 flights by 2050 per year. ie. 504,300. Submitted version.
The number of jobs to be created, from the consultation document is 17,500 by 2050, while it is 122 ,000 in the submitted version.
.
See earlier:
Gatwick submits its 2nd runway plans to Airports Commission – little detail published, but loads of spin
Gatwick is submitting its proposal for a 2nd runway to the Airports Commission. Unlike Heathrow it has not produced a glossy version for the public, but says it has produced a 3,200 page “evidence-based” report. They claim it would produce more economic benefit to the UK and not cost the taxpayer anything. By contrast the KPMG report done in December for the Airports Commission said it might cost the taxpayer up to £17.7 billion. Gatwick
claims: “The economic benefit to the UK of this enhanced competition will be £40 billion more than Heathrow’s 3rd runway.” Gatwick tries to make out their runway is an obvious choice, and say of their rival Heathrow: “Why tunnel part of the busiest motorway in Europe – the M25 – causing serious traffic disruption, when you can build on land already set aside for expansion?” They say: “The Gatwick proposal is best placed to align with key future trends – including continued market share gains by Low Cost Carriers, the spread of new technology hub-busting aircraft such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350, and the rapid rise of new hubs in the Middle East and Far East.” Loads of positive spin, absolutely ignoring all the negatives associated with building an airport the size of Heathrow in semi-rural Sussex.
Click here to view full story…
.
.
.
.