Agenda item

The Campaign Against Gatwick Noise Emissions (CAGNE) have also been invited to make representations to the meeting

The Committee considered a report about Gatwick Airport Limited’s (GAL) intention to use the current standby (northern) runway, in addition to the main runway, as part of its routine operations. This reflected ‘scenario 2’ of GAL’s 2019 masterplan for future growth and would require the seeking of a Development Consent Order to obtain planning permission. A DCO application for this purpose was being prepared by GAL and a public consultation process was scheduled for the later in the year followed by a final DCO submission to the Planning Inspectorate early in 2022. The process would culminate in a public examination of the proposals and the Planning Inspector’s recommendations to the Secretary of State for Transport for decision.

The report recommended that representations be made to GAL conveying the Council’s expectations for the northern runway consultation process; the need for GAL to explain the impact of additional flight capacity upon the District; and disappointment that GAL’s plans appeared to be incompatible with 2050 climate neutral objectives. Councillor Botten proposed amendments to the recommendations, namely:

·                two additional resolutions (A and B below); 

·                addition of the words “and regrets” at the beginning of resolution C below, i.e.:

“The Council acknowledges and regrets Gatwick Airport Limited’s (GAL) decision to continue with the Development Consent Order to redevelop the northern runway as a second runway to increase capacity …”

·                the deletion of the following words from the end of Resolution E below:

“Whilst the Council is not against the use of planes for business and leisure and recognises the economic and social advantages, it is concerned about the environmental impacts, short and long term, that significant growth at Gatwick will have on the District.”

The Campaign Against Gatwick Noise Emissions (CAGNE) had been invited to submit representations to the meeting and a video recording of a statement from Sally Pavey (a CAGNE member) was duly replayed to the Committee. The statement urged the Council to oppose GAL’s growth proposals, asserting that the additional runway capacity would have significantly negative environmental impacts and that new ‘greener’ jobs were needed to create a more sustainable economy for the area, without a disproportionate reliance on Gatwick.

During the debate, it was suggested that the Council should not be submitting representations in isolation and should, instead, collaborate with neighbouring Local Authorities and benefit from expert advice which could be commissioned (via funding made available from GAL) more effectively as part of a joint approach. In response, the Chair advised that the Council had signed up to a joint agreement with other Councils to engage with GAL but considered that, given the timescales, in was important for the matter to be considered at this meeting from a Tandridge perspective. Other Members supported the case for Tandridge to submit its own representations prior to any multi-agency submission. 

Other Members argued against the proposed amendments on the grounds that:

·                there was no basis to the assertion that “the case for airport expansion at Gatwick or anywhere else” has not been made; and

·                the representations from CAGNE were too one-sided and, notwithstanding the need to address environmental concerns, the Committee should consider more balanced arguments, including the operational advantages of the second runway; the relative fuel efficiency of modern aircraft; and the major contribution of the airport to the local economy, illustrated by the severely adverse impact of Gatwick job losses upon livelihoods and the welfare of households in the region.

Those in favour of the above mentioned amendments observed that the representations would align with the Council’s previous declaration of a climate change emergency and that there was no wish to seek the closure of the airport.

Councillor Botten’s amendments were seconded by Councillor Lockwood and, upon being put to the vote, were agreed by the majority of committee members.

R E S O L V E D – that the Council writes to Gatwick Airport Limited to make the following points:

1.       Tandridge District Council has declared a Climate Emergency. It does not believe that the case for airport expansion is made, either at Gatwick or anywhere else, and expects the consultation process to set out clearly what that case is. The Council is concerned about the environmental impacts, short and long term, that significant growth will have on the District.

2.       In the light of the impact of the pandemic on both working practices and the demand for air travel, the move to consultation on the conversion of the north runway is premature and cannot reflect a full understanding of those impacts. 

3.       The Council acknowledges and regrets Gatwick Airport Limited’s (GAL) decision to continue with the Development Consent Order to redevelop the northern runway as a second runway to increase capacity. The Council expects that GAL will fulfil its obligation to consult with all those who live or work in the District, including those hard to reach groups such as those without access to the internet. The consultation needs to provide alternative opportunities for consultation responses to be made offline. The Council requests GAL to inform the Council of its proposals for achieving this.

4.       The Council is also aware that the Future Airspace Implementation South (‘FASI-S’) is currently being progressed by the Civil Aviation Authority to increase capacity over the southern part of the UK. With the proposed increased traffic movements from the additional capacity at Gatwick, the Council requests that GAL explains the full impact of the changes on all parts of the District and, in particular, on those areas where traffic could be routed that have never been overflown before, including the north of the District which has both significant residential populations and the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

5.       The Council has adopted a Climate Change Strategy and endorses national proposals to reduce the use of fossil fuels and is therefore disappointed that GAL are seeking to increase the use of these fuels which does not seem to be compatible with the 2050 climate-neutral objectives.