**************************************************************************************

LANGTON GREEN VILLAGE SOCIETY

SUBMISSION TO THE GATWICK AIRPORT EXPANSION & 2^nd RUNWAY CONSULTATION.

Langton Green.  Our village.

Langton Green is a village in the west of Kent,  to the west of Tunbridge Well and in the parish of Speldhurst.   Langton sits astride the A264 and borders on to East Sussex

The village has some 1,300 households and approaching 3,000 residents.  Early records refer to Langton’s existence at least as far back as the early 1300’s.

In relation to Gatwick’s expansion plans, Langton Green Village Society speaks for the vast majority of Langton residents.  We know that there is a small handful of residents  who see no harm in the expansion plans and even one or two who might even welcome them, but we can say with absolute confidence that this group contains only the smallest of numbers.

The village of Langton is 22 miles from Gatwick Airport.  Langton is directly under the flight assembly point for planes landing at Gatwick from the East as they line up for their final approach to land at Gatwick.    Because the prevailing winds are 70% from the West, 70% of planes landing at Gatwick congregate and fly over our village.  Even though Air Traffic Control try to maintain planes on a constant standard rate of descent Gatwick admits that in the final analysis plane height decisions are the responsibility of the pilot.  Many planes fly over Langton as low as 3,200 feet and these planes are highly intrusive for Langton residents.  Additionally, limited night flights are permitted – unlike Heathrow – and Langton residents can be disturbed by planes at any time during the night.  Langton residents frequently have poor nights’ sleep because of aviation disturbance through the night.  The writer has been woken by fights across the whole night.

Gatwick is the most highly used single runway airport in the world.   Nevertheless, Gatwick continues to push for increased flight volumes through tactics such as landing/approach path consolidation, late flight overspills, Noise Management Board limitation on effectiveness etc.

Pre the pandemic, the Speldhurst Parish and Langton Green Village Councils ran a consultation programme asking villagers to list their likes and dislikes about living in Langton.   By far the biggest single complaint topic was the frequency and intrusion of aircraft.  Back in 2019 residents were seriously complaining about the negative effect aircraft were having on their quality of life.  Gatwick are now proposing a 35% increase on top of that peak intrusion.    Gatwick’s expansion case can be shown to be based on half truths, lies and economic greed.

Aviation planning controls

When central authorities – Government, County or borough councils – are asked to implement changes to local infrastructure – be that road, rail or waterways, authorisation for such changes are subject to very firm planning guidelines that take into consideration the impact of those changes on the local citizenry.   Air transport planning and management seems to have conveniently divested itself of the need for such considerations.  The groundwork for Air Traffic planning and management seems to hide behind the original ATC legislation, passed in 1924, when Imperial Airways was launched.  In the early 1920’s the total number of annual flights to and from all the UK was at the most a couple of thousand;  that figure is less than the current total daily flights to and from the UK.  We have an infinite flights movements increase,  governed by a set of regulations that have little relevance to the current aviation management requirements.

Village Summary

Langton Green, a village which has been here for approaching 800 years, is being “blitzed” by seemingly unaccountable  forces.  Gatwick Airport seem to act as if the affected communities are simply an outright nuisance to be shooed away and ignored at every turn possible.  Gatwick Airport’s only concern seems to be how fast and far they can grow their share value, regardless of any damage they cause to people or environment en route.  The government seems wedded to taking short term actions which it hopes will improve the financial/business growth situation immediately and to its political advantage…e.g.  HS2, aviation strategy, doctors and consultants pay, static tax thresholds  etc.  The net result is that communities like Langton Green are at risk of being steamrollered on very important infrastructure questions like Gatwick expansion.   Gatwick is being driven by commercial lust…….and blow the communities.  We hope the Government is not prepared to support a drive for growth regardless of the serious negative impact its decisions might have on affected communities.    The vast majority of village residents believe that Gatwick’s case for growth by a second Runway is very weak and fails to support other and probably more important commitments such as the Environment, the net Zero drive and the wellbeing of long established communities and residents.

*******************************************************************************************

Langton Green’s position in regard to Gatwick’s proposal for a second runway are attached:

UK AVIATION  EXPANSION BUSINESS CASE AND NEEDS.

1. The UK Government identified the need for flight growth in the South East through improved business connectivity at a London Airport as a priority.  The Government concluded that this would be best met by an additional runway at London Heathrow.
2. Heathrow is primarily a hub/connectivity airport.
3. Gatwick is primarily a short haul /leisure flights airport
4. Gatwick does not have the long haul business routes or volumes to satisfy the connectivity need.
5. Communications between Gatwick and Heathrow cannot be satisfactorily improved enough to meet the needs of the business traveller. 
6. Extra long-haul out of Gatwick risks being a flight to nowhere because of no effective inter- connectivity at Gatwick.
7. Failure of London to grow its hub business would mean loss of business to European competitive airports and poses a risk to UK’s position in the worldwide aviation industry.
8. There is a need for increased flights from the SE, but as a connectivity hub for Long haul business travellers.
9. Gatwick simply can’t meet these connectivity/hub needs, despite voluminous bluster to claim otherwise.

THE NEED FOR INCREASED SHORT HAUL FLIGHTS FROM GATWICK.

1. Gatwick’s main business is short haul/leisure.   If more short haul is needed,  that need can surely be met by using surplus capacity that currently exists at Stansted, Luton and London City, all of which have growth capacity, using existing facilities.
2. Studies have been seen that seem to indicate that the vast majority of Gatwick users come from London and further north.  Gatwick does not primarily serve customers from SE England.
3. There is an extra environmental hit for every such customer traveling distances to Gatwick.
4. Increase in Short Haul from Gatwick means increased environmental premium for the increase in users from further afield.
5. Recent COP’s have highlighted the need to reduce leisure aviation.  A 2^nd runway at Gatwick simply increases leisure aviation, with all its negative environmental costs.
6. In summary, the SE has the capacity for increased short haul growth through existing airports but such  growth puts at risk our environmental and net Zero commitments.  Increased leisure flights seem to be counter-strategic.

 GATWICK CONNECTIVITY

1. The majority of Gatwick’s  customers come from London and north of London. 
2. That means increased environmental damage in addition to the flight damage.
3. Gatwick has poor road connections to London.  The road bottleneck at Purley is a serious pinch point which probably can’t be unblocked.
4. Existing Train lines are insufficient to handle current growth demand.  Existing lines certainly cannot handle the growth in demand a second runway at Gatwick would generate.
5. Gatwick has proposed improvements to the existing M23/M25 interchange.  This would be mere window-dressing of                little value to expected increase in traffic volumes.  Local approach road capacity is insufficient for expected traffic volumes.
6. There has been talk of a new rail line service London to Brighton (and Gatwick).  If the UK cant complete a task such as HS2, how would it ever contemplate a major infrastructure project such a new London:Brighton line?
7. Lack of effective communications should be a showstopper.

LOCAL DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSITION.

1. We understand that all the relevant MPs and the majority of affected councils oppose Gatwick’s plan for a second runway.

GROWTH OF LOCAL BUSINESS THROUGH THE CREATION OF A SECOND RUNWAY

1. Gatwick make impressive claims concerning the growth of employment as a result of the second runway being built.  However, Gatwick has very low unemployment.  The vast majority of workers would have to be shipped into the area.
2. Housing, schools, medical facilities,  all local infrastructure – are already limited in the Gatwick area and would require an enormous construction and investment commitment for  something that could be provided  by better using existing capacity in other London airports.  A second Gatwick runway does not meet existing published Government needs and would probably require the equivalent of a whole new town to be built.

ENVIRONMNTAL IMPACT ON THE LANGTON AND OTHER AFFECTED COMMUNITIES.

1. Langton hopes that the decision-makers regarding the question of building a second runway will realise that Gatwick’s application is for the wrong type of flights, in the wrong place, fails to address the real published UK needs for extra flight capacity, is in an area with poor road and rail communications, is in an area where a whole new town would need to be built and where the whole growth population would have to be shipped in. 
2. In addition, we,  the local residents would be  blitzed by the intrusions 35% extra flights daily would inflict on us.  Increased extra flights.  Increased air pollution.  Increased night flights with noise and air pollution.  All a terrible thing to impose on communities that existed often centuries before the Wright brothers  and at a time when everyone should be showing concern for the environment and our global warming reduction targets
3. Again, the wrong project in the wrong place that would fail to answer the nation’s aviation needs.

THE GATWICK AIRPORT COMPANY.

1. Langton does not object to entrepreneurial business ventures.
2. However, Gatwick is proposing the wrong solution in the wrong place.
3. Gatwick’s shareholders come from outside the UK,
4. Where profits and dividends mostly go outside the UK
5. And where the proposing company has shown itself to be a truly terrible neighbour to the communities its proposals would affect.
6. And where the company presents half truths and unproven technologies as facts to support its business case.
7. Where in reality the proposing company has shown it really does not care a fig about the negative impact it is inflicting on communities.
8. And where one is bound to conclude that the ONLY real driver for Gatwick’s business is its share value, its sale prospects and its short term profit figures.  Gatwick seems uninterested in UK national needs and priorities.

THE LANGTON GREEN VILLAGE WOULD LIKE TO STATE MOST EMPHATICALLY THAT IT OPPOSES GATWICK’S APPLICATION TO BUILD A SECOND RUNWAY;  THE WRONG APPLCATION, IN THE  WRONG PLACE, ANSWERING NO UK NEED,  FROM A COMPANY THAT HAS NO INTEREST IN  THE UK COMMUNITIES IT IS EFFECTING AND FROM A COMPANY THAT SENDS THE MAJORITY OF IT’S PROFITS OUTSIDE THE UK.

 Application for charitable status

Charitable status was applied for in 2022 but was rejected. A further application is being considered.

You may have seen this previously, but even so it still makes pleasant reading!  Country Life magazine mentioned Langton Green as one of the best places to live in Kent. Their full article was entitled 'The 50 Best Places to Live Near London' with 6 villages in our county getting a mention. Langton Green was first out of those six on the list, just in case that makes a difference ;-)

You may read their article HERE