Gatwick Consultation 2002/3 - The Council's response
This is an executive summary of the response Reigate and Banstead Borough Council gave to the Government during a consultation over the expansion of Gatwick and other major airports in the south of England in 2003. The Government subsequently decided to expand Stansted airport but not Gatwick.
The Council's Position
The Council is opposed to any new runway at Gatwick, either before or after 2019, as the same constraints will remain.
In terms of the noise and pollution, environmental, traffic and urbanisation impacts, all three options at Gatwick would have severe adverse effects on this Borough, albeit to differing degrees.
In the case of the close parallel and wide spaced runways to the south, additional noise and air pollution impacts from the additional movements will be felt at Horley, next to the airport and on the wrap-around route over Salfords, further to the north.
Significant traffic and urbanisation impacts would be felt over the whole Borough.
The two runway option would be catastrophic for both Eastern Surrey and Central Sussex, being four times the present throughput and almost twice that of Heathrow. The local and wider impacts are detailed in the response.
The Government's July 2002 consultation ruled out any new runway at Gatwick before 2030, as it did not have sufficient advantages, compared to other potential sites, to justify asking Parliament to overturn the Legal Agreement.
A DfT official has confirmed that there is no new information since July 2002. Therefore, the Council urges the Government to make the same decision again.
The need for additional capacity
The Council has already accepted that there is a need for some additional runway capacity in the South East.
However, concern is raised that the demand-led "predict and provide" approach in the consultation document to the provision of airport capacity is not sustainable.
Bearing in mind that there is potential for up to 60% growth in capacity at Gatwick, subject to environmental safeguards, the Council notes that its future is assured.
The Council will continue to support the Airport in adapting as necessary to maintain its role as a single runway, two terminal airport.
The Council considers that adapting existing airports will be hugely expensive and unlikely to meet environmental objectives and therefore that a new airport should be built with room to expand and operate without disturbing local residents.
There is clear evidence in SERAS that the environmental impact of development at Heathrow and Gatwick is far more damaging than that at Cliffe or Stansted.
The Council therefore supports an estuarine location, not necessarily at Cliffe. The Council also notes the locational and other advantages of Stansted to serve as a national "hub" or major airport, should the Cliffe option itself not proceed.
The Importance of the 1979 Legal Agreement
The Council fully supports the Agreement signed by the West Sussex County Council and the then British Airports Authority in 1979, under which the airport operator undertook not to construct a second runway for 40 years.
The Council will join with other local authorities to resist any attempt to overturn this Agreement.
The Local Impacts of the Proposed Gatwick Options
Gatwick is a small constrained site close to the towns of Crawley and Horley, with high ground to the west and a railway line to the east and is therefore not an ideal site for airport development.
Details of additional surface access provision in SERAS is underestimated and restricted to the strategic road and rail network.
Funding arrangements are also unclear. Increased traffic congestion would seriously affect the Borough, particularly on the local road network when the strategic network itself becomes congested or is subject to incidents. The response details the shortcomings.
SERAS also underestimates the employment impact and thus the urbanisation implications, by excluding induced employment (extra services and facilities needed for the additional airport workers or extra jobs attracted to the area).
With two new runways the Gatwick area would be like Heathrow, with urbanisation along the M23/A23 corridor like the M4/A4.
The Council estimates that 47,000 additional houses would need to be accommodated in the core area i.e. Crawley, Mid Sussex and Reigate and Banstead. The response provides further details for all three options.
SERAS uses 57dBA as a comparator for the onset of annoyance from aircraft noise but the Council agrees with the World Health Organisation that the figure should be between 50 and 55 dBA.
This is more appropriate when overflying new and partly rural areas, as is forecast over Eastern Surrey. The response details the shortcomings of the SERAS methodology.
An Air Quality Management Area has already been declared in Horley due to the likely exceedances of the EU limit for NO2 exposure.
Airport expansion will exacerbate poor air quality in Horley and elsewhere. The response details the shortcomings of the SERAS methodology and other air quality issues.
Two new runways and associated taxiways and stands would produce a massive amount of surface water run-off to the detriment of nearby watercourses and settlements, which are subject to flooding already.
The Council considers that the decision on future runway capacity should not rely on the cost benefit analysis used by SERAS.
It uses the economic benefits to users to compare the packages, while the environmental disadvantages and the full costs of urbanisation and surface access are not included.
Reigate & Banstead Borough Council
Town Hall
Castlefield Road
Reigate
RH2 0SH
01737 276000
Maps
For maps of the local town centres in the Borough which you can print off, see our maps section.
Reigate and Banstead Borough Council is not responsible for the content of external sites.
