Kent County Council KCC strongly opposes Gatwick’s northern runway proposals
Kent County Council (KCC) has responded to Gatwick Airport’s consultation strongly opposing plans to routinely use its northern runway for departing aircraft. The plans would see the airport grow – if things go Gatwick’s way – from 46.6 million passengers per annum (mppa) in 2019 to 75.6 mppa by 2038. The council’s response is in line with their existing Policy on Gatwick Airport, which was adopted by Cabinet in 2014. KCC Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport, David Brazier said: “KCC has long argued the impacts of Gatwick’s current single runway configuration are already unacceptable, and a potential increase of these impacts on local communities and the environment would be intolerable” with the extra flights and noise. They are also concerned about the increased carbon emissions, and the pressure on public transport to and from Kent. KCC says the project would have a significant material impact on the Government’s ability to meet carbon reduction targets. Also that the full extent to which communities and the environment will be impacted will not be properly assessed or appropriately mitigated.
.
Tweet
KCC strongly opposes Gatwick Airport’s Northern Runway proposals
By Ellis Stephenson (KCC Media Hub)
2.12.2021
Kent County Council has responded to Gatwick Airport’s consultation strongly opposing plans to routinely use its northern runway for departing aircraft.
Gatwick Airport’s proposals would see the airport grow from 46.6 million passengers per annum (MPPA) in 2019 to 75.6 mppa by 2038.
KCC’s response to the consultation remains in line with the Council’s existing Policy on Gatwick Airport, which was adopted by Cabinet in 2014.
Whilst at the time, this was in response to the Airports Commission and the proposals for a newly constructed and independently operated second runway, KCC feels these latest proposals to routinely use the northern runway are a way for Gatwick to become a two-runway airport by another means.
KCC Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport, David Brazier said: “KCC has long argued the impacts of Gatwick’s current single runway configuration are already unacceptable, and a potential increase of these impacts on local communities and the environment would be intolerable.
“Bringing the northern runway into operation for departing aircraft will significantly increase the number of aircraft movements that the airport can handle.
“Whilst we understand that an increase in aircraft movements would enhance the economic benefits of the airport, routine use of the northern runway is not something KCC can support.”
KCC’s response also raises concerns regarding intensification of the main runway, noise from overflying aircraft, carbon emissions and the lack of efficient rail and public transport connections to and from Kent.
The full consultation response can be viewed at www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council/strategies-and-policies/transport-and-highways-policies/aviation/gatwick-airport-position-statement
and the response itself at
https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/128595/KCC-response-to-Gatwick-Northern-Runway-Consultation.pdf
.
https://kccmediahub.net/kcc-strongly-opposes-gatwick-airports-northern-runway-proposals745
In the summary of the consultation response, Kent County Council says:
In respect to the latest proposals within this most recent consultation, KCC continues to strongly oppose the proposals to bring the existing northern runway into routine use. There are four key areas where we have concerns:
1. Intensification of the main runway at Gatwick
Routinely using the northern runway would create extra capacity on the existing main runway along with allowing Gatwick the opportunity to increase the number of larger aircraft arriving and departing from the main runway. We are concerned that the intensification of the main runway is not fully assessed within these proposals and therefore the full extent to which communities and the environment will be impacted will not be properly assessed or appropriately mitigated.
2. Noise from overflying aircraft
KCC has long argued the impacts of Gatwick’s current single runway configuration are already unacceptable, and a potential increase of these impacts on local communities would be intolerable. Areas of West Kent such as Tunbridge Wells, Edenbridge, Hever and Penshurst are adversely affected by overflight from Gatwick. Despite technological advances, meaning aircraft become quieter over time, the increase in movements with the northern runway in routine operation will result in the noise environment around Gatwick being broadly similar to today and so the benefits of quieter aircraft would not be felt by the communities around the airport. We advocate that this is not in keeping with the ethos of sustainable growth that is promoted in Gatwick’s Master Plan.
3. Carbon emissions
KCC believes the northern runway project would have a significant material impact on the Government’s ability to meet carbon reduction targets and therefore should weigh against granting development consent. By 2050, routinely operating the northern runway would see Gatwick contributing 20% to the overall UK aviation carbon target.
4. Lack of efficient rail connections to Kent
A direct rail service from Kent to Gatwick continues to be a priority within KCC’s Kent Rail Strategy 2021. Such a service could be delivered with only modest further infrastructure enhancements and could be a natural extension of the existing GWR operated Reading – Gatwick services by extending this to Canterbury West via Redhill, Tonbridge, and Ashford.
See the full response, to each question:
.
See also:
Gatwick expansion consultation – its plans would have ‘few benefits’ and many negative impacts
November 26, 2021
The Gatwick consultation on its plans to use its northern, standby, runway as a full runway, ends on 1st December. It is important that anyone who has strong views on the issue submits a response, even if a very brief one. The impact of the expansion would be to hugely increase noise, carbon emissions, local road and rail congestion, air pollution, light pollution and more. The airport is trying to talk up its plans, with extravagant and improbable claims of the number of jobs that might be created locally, and the positive economic impact. Local campaign group, GACC, has prepared extensive comments to the consultation, to help people respond. Also a short, quick version that people can use – or ideally adapt into their own words – to express their concerns. GACC says Gatwick’s plans “would have few benefits but serious climate change consequences and devastating impacts on local communities and people under flight paths.” Any increase in jobs would be by displacement from other regions and would be inconsistent with the government’s ‘levelling up’ plans. And its case for growth simply doesn’t stack up and the consequences are unthinkable.
Gatwick’s Big Enough – a 2nd runway at Gatwick would be ‘disaster for the climate’
Protesters, organised through the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC), gathered near the airport, chanting ‘Gatwick is big enough’, to express their opposition to the airport’s plans to convert its standby runway into a runway for routine flights. Campaigners, residents and councillors held a peaceful demonstration next to a noise monitor in Charlwood, to coincide with the midnight launch of Gatwick’s public consultation into its proposed expansion. Operating as a 2-runway airport would see Gatwick increase its annual passenger capacity from 62 million to 75m by 2038 – making it almost as large as Heathrow today. GACC chairman, Peter Barclay said the expansion of the airport would have negative impacts for people over a wide area – in terms of noise and air pollution, more night noise and sleep deprivation, and impacts on local infrastructure. All that affects people’s quality of life. While humanity urgently needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, if we are to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change, it makes no sense d to allow Gatwick to expand, adding another 1 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year.
Click here to view full story…
.
.
.
.