fbpx

Greater economic benefits from expanding Heathrow

Wealden’s Cabinet decided on the evidence presented not to support the second runway at Gatwick because expansion at Heathrow appears to have greater economic benefits for Wealden than Gatwick’s second runway.

New_two_runway_Gatwick_756x350_webOnly yesterday East Sussex County Council decided to support expansion at Gatwick Airport.

Wealden Councillors have concerns expansion at Gatwick will increase pressure on housing in the District.  East Sussex County Council have estimated the current number of workers living in the County who are directly employed by Gatwick as 5.3%, with 2.8% of these living in Wealden.  This equates to around 1,100 jobs at present with a projected increase to 3,400 employed directly by Gatwick by 2030.

In their submission to the Airport Commission, Wealden District Council have said they think further work needs to be done on the environmental impact on the Ashdown Forest, particularly exhaust fumes from the extra vehicles.

The Airport Commission, led by Sir Howard Davies, will recommend after the General Election in May, how the Government should respond to demands for greater airport capacity in South East England.

Cllr Ann Newton, Cabinet member for Planning and Development said:

From the evidence we have been given,  the adverse environmental impact of a second runway for Wealden far out weighs any economic benefits that it may have for the District.

On the separate issue of flightpaths, Wealden District Council agreed to continue to raise concerns about any changes to departures and arrivals at Gatwick which may have an adverse impact on noise levels affecting Wealden District.

Cllr Ann Newton, Cabinet member for Planning and Development said:

The changes in the flightpaths over summer caused havoc for residents in the north of the District.

Charles Hendry MP

Following the decision of East Sussex County Councillors to support the expansion of Gatwick Airport yesterday, Wealden MP Charles Hendry commented:

Having looked closely at the figures, I am in no doubt that the supposed economic benefits are bogus.  Gatwick suggests a second runway would create more than 120,000 jobs but there are less than 25,000 unemployed people in the areas surrounding Gatwick.  Therefore expansion will lead to huge inward migration to the counties around the airport, East Sussex included, which will require vast new housing stock and supportive infrastructure.  Gatwick have committed just £10 million for motorway improvements – which will amount to less than 10 miles of highway.  It expects the Government or Councils to pay for all the other infrastructure improvements that would be needed.

Gatwick plans would mean a doubling of the number of flights – more than 10,000 a week – and approaching three times as many passengers.  This would put an intolerable burden on our local infrastructure and I am sorry that the County Council failed to recognise the great intrusion today’s smaller Gatwick puts on so many people living in Wealden.

We can only hope now that the mass of opposition from other Local Authorities in the area will be enough to dissuade the Airports Commission from recommending expansion at Gatwick this summer.

Click on the following link to read Wealden’s full submission to the Airport Commission.

For other articles about Gatwick click on the following link: Gatwick Airport.

Have your Say

You can add your comments below, or say what you think on Facebook.

,
One comment on “Greater economic benefits from expanding Heathrow
  1. “The changes in the flightpaths over summer caused havoc for residents in the north of the District.” Really? HOW? Havoc means
    1. Widespread destruction; devastation.
    2. Disorder or chaos:
    3. To destroy or pillage.
    Perhaps someone can evidence all, or any, of the above in this context?

    “I am sorry that the County Council failed to recognise the great intrusion today’s smaller Gatwick puts on so many people living in Wealden.” What “great intrusion” is this? Living near an airport is a convenience, not an intrusion.

    May I remind you that intrusion means:
    1. an illegal act of entering, seizing, or taking possession of another’s property.
    2. a wrongful entry after the determination of a particular estate, made before the remainderman or reversioner has entered.

    What evidence is there of any “intrusion”? If you don’t understand the meaning or relevance of the words you use, where is the credibility?

Share Your Views