Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Submission to Airport Commission focuses on noise and tranquillity
CPRE Kent has made a submission to the Airports Commission consultation into a new runway at Gatwick or Heathrow, raising the issues of noise and tranquillity and pressure on the environment and infrastructure.
The consultation closed yesterday (3rd February) and the Commission will publish its report this summer.
In our submission, we have drawn on the devastating impacts of recent flight path alterations which have seen a concentration of flights over previously tranquil areas of west Kent.
“This has brought misery to many people living in west Kent,” said CPRE Kent Director Hilary Newport. “The importance of tranquillity cannot be overstated – it is the main reason why people enjoy the countryside and can prevent stress and aid people’s enjoyment of exercise and play.”
We have also focused on the extraordinary pressure that would be placed on the environment and the existing http://ambienbuy.net infrastructure of the surrounding areas of Heathrow or Gatwick by drawing thousands of additional employees and passengers to an area of the country already struggling to cope with the pressure on housing and transport.
Dr Newport said: “The Airports Commission appears to be ignoring the fundamental issue of environmental capacity. Increasing the indirect stress on water supplies, impacting heavily on the environment, in particular wildlife habitats and countryside leisure opportunities, and affecting resilience to flooding in a future of uncertain weather are all aspects that must be considered. Some of these problems can be resolved with civil engineering solutions, but there is a very real risk of a runway that functions economically and technically but at far too high a price on the environment.”
To read the full submission click here.
4th February 2015.
- A number of important documents have yet to emerge. For example, a rigorous transport plan and a finalised air-quality assessment. The latter is critical given that allocations at Teynham will feed extra traffic into AQMAs.
- There seems to be no coherent plan for infrastructure delivery – a key component of the plan given the allocations being proposed near the already crowded Junction 7.
- There seems to have been little or no cooperation with neighbouring boroughs or even parish councils within Swale itself.
The removal of a second consultation might have been understandable if this final version of the plan were similar to that being talked about at the beginning of the consultation process. It is, however, radically different in the following ways:
- There has been a major shift in the balance of housing allocations, away from the west of the borough over to the east, especially around the historic town of Faversham. This is a move that raises many concerns.
- A new large allocation, with accompanying A2 bypass, has appeared around Teynham and Lynsted, to which we are objecting.
- Housing allocations in the AONB around Neames Forstal that were judged “unsuitable” by the council’s own officers have now appeared as part of the housing numbers.
- Most of the housing allocations being proposed are on greenfield sites, many of them on Grade 1 agricultural land – a point to which we are strongly objecting.
Concerns about the rush to submit the plan
The haste with which the plan is being prepared is especially worrying given the concentration of housing in Faversham. If the town is to take a large amount of new housing, it is imperative that the policies concerning the area are carefully worked out to preserve, as far as possible, the unique nature of the town. The rush to submit the plan is likely to prove detrimental.
As Swale does not have a five-year land housing supply, it is open to speculative development proposals, many of which would run counter to the ideas contained in the current plan. Some are already appearing. This is a common situation, and one that, doubtless, is a reason behind Swale’s haste.
Our overriding fear, however, is that this emphasis on haste is ultimately going to prove counterproductive. This is because it is our view that the plan, in its current form, is unlikely to pass independent examination. We are urging Swale to listen to and act upon the comments being made about the plan and to return the plan to the council with appropriate modifications before submitting it to the Secretary of State.
Essentially, this means treating the current consultation not as the final one but as the ‘lost’ second consultation.
The consultation ends on Friday 30 April and we strongly urge residents to make their opinions known if they have not already done so.
Further information
