Seminar Held Jointly by GACC, CPRE Surrey and CPRE Sussex

Runaway Gatwick?

Seminar held jointly by GACC, CPRE Surrey and CPRE Sussex

on Friday 25 October

Local and national concern at a proposal by Gatwick Airport Limited for a second runway was much in evidence at a high-profile seminar on Friday, where a packed house gathered to examine its potentially devastating consequences and discuss how it can be challenged.

Organised jointly by GACC, CPRE Surrey and CPRE Sussex, the event was particularly well attended by influential policy makers, with four MPs and one MEP actively participating. Over thirty local councillors of all the major parties also contributed, with Cllr Helyn Clack of Surrey County Council in the Chair.

The Rt Hon Francis Maude MP

The Rt Hon Francis Maude MP gave the keynote speech, in which he referred to his previous role as chairman of the Gravetye Group, a body that brought together MPs for all affected constituencies, concerned local authorities and GACC, to oppose previous proposals for Gatwick expansion.

Mr Maude acknowledged the role of the airport as a serious motor of the local economy, and his strong support for its expansion as single-runway airport. This view having until recently been shared by all MPs and local authorities, he expressed his surprise at WSCC’s decision to support a second runway, a decision he did not consider to signal public acquiescence. Mr Maude referred to Nicholas Soames MP, who had written to Sir Howard Davies saying he should not make any assumption that local opposition has in any way dissipated.

Mr Maude went on to remind those present that the Airports Commission had been established by government to resolved the difficult question of where additional runway capacity for the south east should be located, with many contentious issues still to be canvassed. For example, pressure for new housing was already intense and highly controversial. He emphasised that perceptions matter, and the Commission would look at the level of local opposition or support – those who oppose the second runway should make their voices heard “with clarion certainty”.

During open forum discussion, several speakers agreed that Gatwick should be supported as a single-runway airport, but believed that the proposals for a second runway represented pure financial opportunism. The damage an additional runway would cause to the area was of great concern, affecting the environment and many other quality-of-life aspects. The view was expressed that Gatwick Airport Limited’s long-term vision might be good for London and for big business, but would bring jobs to an area of the country that had no real unemployment, at the expense of growth and jobs in the rest of UK.New runways in the south east would make matters worse.

Crispin Blunt MP argued in favour of an estuary airport, in recognition that more people will want to fly to London from developing countries in coming decades and the city’s status as a great global city.

This became a central issue during debate – whether there was a genuine need for greater runway capacity in the south east. Keith Taylor MEP questioned why the Airports Commission had already “pre-concluded” the need for growth, just so that passengers would not be inconvenienced. While Howard Davies had acknowledged the climate impacts of aviation, he “conveniently then dismissed it”. Mr Taylor argued that predict-and-provide had been proven not to work, and no case had been presented demonstrating the need for any growth in aviation. Those living in the region should come above business interest.

Tim Johnson, Director of the Aviation Environment Federation

Tim Johnson focused on the environmental impact of a second runway, recalling that the UK has a tough climate change law requiring a reduction in carbon emissions of 80% by 2050. The Committee on Climate Change had concluded that if other parts of industry reduced their emissions, then aviation could continue to grow provided it kept its emissions at 2005 levels. Consequently, aviation could not be allowed unrestricted expansion – it had to put the brakes put on and grow more slowly, and under this scenario capacity already existed to cater for the demand that exists, looking at London as a system of airports.

Despite this Howard Davies presumed that the south east still needed new runway capacity. Mr Johnson argued that locking ourselves into providing a new runway in the hope that industry would provide answers to carbon reduction was wholly unrealistic.

He continued by addressing the noise issue, with evidence that people exposed to airport noise are annoyed by it at much lower levels than previously realised, reacting to the number of noise events, the time of day and tranquillity disruption. These had potentially serious health implications that were little discussed, and worryingly between four and five times more people would be affected by aircraft noise than currently if a second runway were built.

Tim Harrold, Chairman CPRE Surrey Aviation Group

Tim Harrold addressed the infrastructure implications of a second runway at Gatwick, emphasising how important the airport’s impacts were to the work of all three affected CPRE branches (Surrey, Sussex and Kent), who were supported at the event by Sean Spiers, Chief Executive of CPRE nationally.

Mr Harrold emphasised that Surrey is already the most “overflown” county in the country, and that Gatwick Airport Limited’s proposals for 18,000 new jobs would make the airport larger than Heathrow. The effects would be dramatic, with the need for 30-40,000 houses, more cars and HGVs than the roads could cope with. What degree of overcrowding would result? The need for huge social infrastructure, such as hospitals and schools, would also be immense.

During open forum it became clear that there was extreme concern among those present about the infrastructure problems a new runway would bring. Rail links, for example, were already running over capacity and yet no solutions to this were being proposed.

Discussion turned to how to campaign effectively against the proposal for a second runway. Sir Paul Beresford MP supported the setting up of a team of MPs working from the House of Commons.

There was a frank exchange of views on whether broader arguments about climate change would win the day, or whether campaigning should focus on local environmental issues, such as infrastructure and pollution.

What was clear was that a single strong voice against expansion was needed.

Panel debate

Four experts formed the panel – Keith Taylor MEP, Sarah Clayton (Organiser, AirportWatch), Georgia Wrighton (Director, CPRE Sussex), and Brendon Sewill (Chairman, GACC), and each gave brief introductions.

Ms Clayton and Mr Taylor urged opponents of the second runway to make their voices heard, engaging local groups as much as possible on key issues such as road and noise pollution and the threat to people’s way of life. There were many examples of successful anti-airport campaigns, such as Heathrow, Stansted and Munich where runway proposals had been defeated.

The panel agreed on the importance of challenging more effectively the business groups that were arguing that infrastructure would not be a constraint, when it was clear that it would be, and also to challenge their often unfounded arguments on the economic benefits of airport expansion.

The seminar concluded with the Chair tabling a resolution that, “Those here would oppose any new runway at LGW”, which was passed by a show of hands with a large majority.