Agenda item

Report by Executive Director Economy, Infrastructure and Environment – attached.

This report outlines the County Council’s draft response to the Gatwick Airport Draft Masterplan 2018 consultation.

The Committee is asked to scrutinise and give comment on the draft response.

45.1 The Committee considered a report by Executive Director Economy, Infrastructure and Environment (copy appended to signed minutes). 

45.2 Mike Elkington, Head of Planning Services and Lee Harris, Executive Director Economy, Infrastructure and Environment introduced the report which outlined the County Council’s draft response to the Gatwick Airport Ltd (GAL) Masterplan consultation.

45.3 The Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure recognised that GAL hadn’t provided a comprehensive amount of detail for the consultation, but that he was open to listening to members and their views before finalising the County Council’s response.

45.4 Brenda Smith, Local Member for Langley Green and Ifield East, was invited to address the Committee. Key points were: 

·         She believed the initial draft Masterplan was a second runway by stealth.

Her main concerns were over the impact and effect of airport growth on the immediate surrounding areas affecting Crawley residents particularly in the Langley Green area.

·         She felt that although GAL had acknowledged that road improvements would be needed they had provided no detail in the proposals on how to manage greater vehicle movements and deal with higher volumes of traffic in the surrounding areas, potentially leading to West Sussex residents bearing the costs of any road damage and improvements needed .

·         She also highlighted the effect of increased noise and subsequent sleep deprivation of those living in affected areas and noted there was little to address the effect that an increase in passenger numbers would have. She believed that if the extension happened it would be disastrous for the neighbourhood and asked the County Council to oppose anything that would lead to a second runway.

45.5 Mr Elkington advised that GAL had said they would carry out a full transport assessment to determine the wider impact of the Existing Standby Runway scenario and that the County Council would need to work with them to address these issues. GAL would also need to do a full environmental assessment of the impact of noise, including on health.

45.6 The Committee made comments including those that follow.  It:

·         Suggested that even though economic growth was good for West Sussex, it should not be encouraged at the expense of either residents or the environment. Concerns were raised that further expansion could lead to overall economic dominance in the area by the airport and supress other economic activity. It could also constrain future growth for housing, transport and commercial development that would better benefit residents. It was highlighted that the County Council needed to adopt a neutral position, but to make a strong point that any adverse impacts would need mitigating and that the response also needed a description of the environmental and social impacts

·         Raised concerns over the safeguarding of land surrounding the airport especially given the amount of local development planned and suggested the County Council enter into a new legal agreement to seek reassurances over any future construction of a new runway. There were also suggestions that the land could alternatively be used for affordable housing or business and commercial purposes. However it was agreed that the proposal to work with GAL over land safeguarding was a sound one.  Mr Elkington advised that safeguarding land would only be determined by the government and the local plan process would take into account any areas affected. Mr Harris added that GAL had stated that it doesn’t intend to develop a new runway south of the existing one and that the draft response doesn’t support an additional runway. The purpose of safeguarding land protected the area for the future and that the County Council needed to work with GAL and the other local authorities to determine the boundaries.

·         Raised concerns over surface access to the airport and the amount of infrastructure required, including the need for additional junctions on the M23 motorway and the existing rail capacity in the region, especially on the Brighton rail mainline, considered already full to capacity.

·         Raised concerns over the noise implications for residents brought about by increased air traffic and significant growth of cargo movements. Also highlighted the need for increased passenger facilities at the airport and the likelihood of additional pressure on local authorities to provide housing in the surrounding areas. 

45.7 Mr Harris noted that there was a lack of detail in the draft Masterplan and that GAL had signalled a change of policy around the emergency runway. His view was that it was important to signal to GAL what information was needed if the proposals were to be taken forward. Although it was recognised that GAL was a commercial company seeking to grow, there were a significant number of environmental downsides so a balance needed to be sought. The County Council would seek to work with GAL over the safeguarding land issue. 

45.8 Mr Elkins added that an agreement with GAL would be beneficial and bring about more certainty.

45.9 Ms Goldsmith, Leader, advised that the government would look to the County Council to give comment on any agreement for further development.

45.10 Resolved – That the Committee:

1)   Supports a neutral but firm response on the Gatwick Masterplan, to include a 1 page summary of the County Council’s position and areas of concern as an appendix.

2)   With specific regard to the Safeguarded Additional Runway scenario, raised concerns but remained neutral, recognising it was a government decision.

3)   Supports pursuing a new legal agreement with GAL to prevent construction of a new runway to the South of the airport, to be brought back to the Committee when a position is determined.