Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Warning of serious increase in air pollution
CPRE Kent has made final comments to the Airports Commission raising concerns about the serious impact on air quality of a new runway at Gatwick or Heathrow.
Any additional runway capacity will damage the UK’s efforts to control its carbon emissions.
And, as the UK Supreme Court has stated, the Air Quality Directive requires no detriment to existing air quality.
CPRE Kent Director Dr Hilary Newport said: “It is impossible to increase the number of flights from any airport without increasing air pollution. We trust that the Commission and the Government will at last recognise this and rule out expansion to protect the health, welfare and economy of the UK.”
CPRE Kent makes the point that the Airports Commission is assessing the economic benefits of a new runway operating at full capacity; while looking at the environmental impact based on it operating at half or less capacity (in 2030).
The forecasts of pollution caused by road traffic are seriously understated. Again the Commission refers to the year 2030 when a new runway would be operating at only half or less of full capacity. It also ignores the extra road traffic due to increased employment at the many new firms attracted to the area – the staff of which would need to travel to and from work, mostly by car.
In its response to the main consultation by the Airports Commission, GACC calculated that a Gatwick second runway, at full capacity, would create 100,000 extra road vehicles a day in the Gatwick area.
Furthermore, the Commission’s own forecast of a tenfold increase in the amount of freight handled by Gatwick would lead to a substantial increase in the number of commercial vehicles, and a further serious increase in pollution levels.
A particular problem affecting Kent would be the increased traffic using the Dartford crossing, which would significantly worsen pollution around the eastern M25, and all its feeder roads. CPRE Kent believes that this aspect has received little, if any, consideration.
There seems to have been be no recognition that on 30 April and 1 May, 2015, the Supreme Court delivered judgement that the Government is legally bound to take action to implement Article 13 of the EU Air Quality Directive which places limits on the maximum annual level of pollution.
Dr Newport said: “We believe this judgement is likely to rule out both runway options at Heathrow, and also a second Gatwick runway.”
Kent is fortunate in that at present air quality is comparatively good, apart from near some main roads. Rural areas enjoy better air quality than urban areas.
Dr Newport said: “We do not condone any reduction in air quality. People who live in the country expect to breathe clean air, not air which is only slightly better than a busy city street.
“Higher pollution levels, with their impact on health and habitats, are not acceptable for present or future generations.”
To read a full version of our submission click here.
June 2nd 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
