Call for all affected by Gatwick noise to ask their councillors if they back a 2nd runway. If “Yes” – don’t vote for them
In a letter published in the West Sussex County Times, Sally Pavey – who is the chair of the local residents’ group CAGNE writes about the need for elected representatives to do more for people suffering from Gatwick flight paths. People who have now found themselves at risk of being under a concentrated PR NAV flight path need their elected representatives to work on their behalf. CAGNE was formed due to the flight path trial, called in the jargon, “ADNID” that took place for 6 months, ending in early August. Sally questions the democratic process that permits this insult to the quality of life of thousands of inoffensive citizens, in order that the foreign big-business owners of Gatwick can make more profit. She asks how democratic the airport is, when the only consultation done on flight path trials is through the GATCOM and NATMAG committees, at neither of which the public can speak. Sally urges local residents to “ask those that seek to represent you, ie parish councils, district councillors, West Sussex county councillors and your MP, a simple question. Do you support a second runway at Gatwick Airport? Yes or No. And if the answer is Yes, do not vote for them.”
LETTER: Second runway is election issue
5.9.2014 (West Sussex County Times)
With so many residents now complaining about the noise from aircraft taking off and landing at Gatwick Airport shouldn’t those that we voted into a position of power start listening to us?
CAGNE, (Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions) formed out of the Gatwick Airport ADNID trial route, oppose a second runway at Gatwick as it would mean even greater number of planes in the sky above our homes and invites residents of West Sussex to join with them in objecting.
The ADNID trial has not gone away, as it appeared in the flawed Gatwick Airport new flight path consultation that discriminated against those it actually seeks to consult, with 120 pages of aviation jargon and inaccuracies.
The consultation will now go to the CAA and it will be down to the CAA to decide if the consultation is valid. If they do then Gatwick can identify the route they would like to progress and the Secretary of State can sign it off without consulting us again!
Where’s democracy when it comes to big business wanting to gain greater profits to please off-shore owners? According to the CEO of Gatwick recently, we’re an ‘environmental cost it can afford’.
The ADNID trial masked the introduction of PBN (Performance Based Navigation) this is sat nav for planes, where planes follow a concentrated route and this Government introduces it with no research into the impact that it has on people’s lives. Evidence from the letters in this newspaper, its coverage and emails CAGNE receive, PBN is having a devastating affect on people’s quality of life
In other countries PBN is used to benefit the population below as it is possible to fly planes with such precision but, no, Gatwick have been allowed to place it where they wish, with no prior consultation with residents. No surprise there – we were not told about the ADNID trial as Gatwick use GATCOM to say they consult.
GATCOM is financed by Gatwick; the aviation adviser is paid by Gatwick and apart from a few councillors and GACC [Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign] the rest of the committee is made up of those that work for Gatwick, ie trade unions, customer services, airlines, baggage handlers, and Gatwick Diamond which seeks to benefit greatly from Gatwick expanding.
You can attend a GATCOM meeting and watch – but you are not allowed to speak. How is this consulting the residents? Did your council ask for your opinion about PBN or ADNID?
And NATMAG, another group that Gatwick claim to consult through that deals with aircraft noise, is conducted behind closed doors. That means we, the people who have to suffer the noise, are not allowed to attend!
If the consultation document is anything to go by, how can we expect our councillors to understand the aviation jargon filled proposals placed in front of them by Gatwick? [The consultation was very widely deemed to be almost impossible for non-experts to either comprehend, or correctly respond to].
Gatwick simply have to blind the councillors with aviation jargon, which they do not have background knowledge to fully understand, and then do a sales job. Then they have achieved their aim, ie. more planes in the sky over us, the hard working taxpayers!
I urge residents to ask those that seek to represent you, ie parish councils, district councillors, West Sussex county councillors and your MP, a simple question. Do you support a second runway at Gatwick Airport? Yes or No.
And if the answer is Yes, do not vote for them.
It was not long ago that the West Sussex Liberal Democrats voted to support the second runway at the vote brought forward by the leader of WSCC with only three days’ notice and no chance for independent groups to make representations or for any councillors to consult residents. And if I remember rightly the LibDems also wrote in this newspaper of how they aimed to change national policy to support a second runway.
And UKIP, what is your aviation policy? You keep writing about the pressure that a second runway would put on our already struggling infrastructure but answer the question. Do you support a second runway at Gatwick? Yes or No.
CAGNE oppose a second runway at Gatwick because it will destroy this rural area forever and bring a huge number of additional flight paths over us all. And it will be us, the taxpayer, that will pay for the infrastructure to support an airport larger than Heathrow with 97 million passengers and 122,000 inward migrated workers all looking to use the roads, railway, hospital, GPs, schools, affordable housing, etc, etc.
Join CAGNE www.cagne.org and say NO to a second runway and, as Horsham District Council will vote in the autumn whether to support a second runway, ask your councillors now if they support a second runway at Gatwick?
Chair of CAGNE, Mayes Lane, Warnham
For other recent news stories about Gatwick, see