Gatwick Airport has responded (26th April) to the various points raised by the Secretary of State’s letter of 27th February 2025, concerning the building of a new runway at Gatwick, whereby she is ‘minded to approve’ but with restrictions.
Gatwick offering £80,000 to the South Downs National Park (SDNP), which ‘requires funding for the promotion of its Dark Skies Reserve’, is a slap in the face for all those residents who suffer sleep deprivation through the light pollution and noise of Gatwick’s night flights. These occur during the hours of 11.30pm till 6am, with 11,200 flights during the summer schedule and 3,250 in winter, plus multiple additional flights due to Government permitted dispensations.
‘Annex 4, 2.27 In seeking examples of projects which it might be appropriate to fund, the Applicant (Gatwick) reviewed the Management Plans ………Through engagement, however, the Applicant was advised by SDNP of its prospective Dark Night Skies initiative, which requires funding for the promotion of its Dark Skies Reserve. The funding would be used for light monitoring and reporting; the annual Dark Skies Festival, including a special 10 year anniversary event; and the creation of a Dark Skies Engagement role to help raise awareness and enjoyment of the night sky. The sum sought was £80,000.’
This funding does not help those residents who will see a significant increase in flights over their homes. Nor will the £320,000 offered by Gatwick Airport, via SDNP, to the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty where these residents live.
“This must be seen as nothing more than an attempt to buy-off opposition, as these environmental bodies struggle to find funding during this cost-of-living crisis.
“Residents move to these areas for the expectation of tranquillity, for nature, not the thunder of aircraft 24/7. How can a donation to the Dark Skies Reserve help these residents’ ‘enjoyment of the night sky’?”
House prices reflect the tranquillity that their owners enjoy, so this monetary amount does not fulfil the ‘duty’ required to ‘enhance and protect’.
Increasing flights over such areas must also be seen as a dereliction of ‘duty’ to preserve and enhance heritage. Heritage sites such as Hever Castle (receiving an increase of 64.8 in daily overflights, 389.9 ATM by 2032) and Ashdown Forest (increase of 23.9 flights a day, 143.2 ATM by 2032) are both facing a 20% increase, in addition to night flights. So much for ‘duty’ or preserving dark skies.”
– Ends –
This para from the SDNPA response to SoS letter:
“Given the stage in the process that the DCO application is now at, this presents limited opportunities to incorporate measures into the scheme that would further the enhancement of the Protected Landscapes and help demonstrate compliance with the Duty. Therefore, if it is determined that notwithstanding the acknowledged harm to the four Protected Landscapes (as set out at ER 12.4.48) and consent is to be granted, a financial contribution made to the four impacted Protected Landscapes would be the most appropriate measure”
It seems to me that they have effectively given up, and are not seeking to actually defend compliance with the Duty, which is rubbish…
The contrast with the High Weald response is instructive. They say:
“We write in response to the Secretary of State’s for Transport’s letter of 27th February 2025, in particular para 15 which, sets out that: “In addition, a final decision to approve the Proposed Development is subject to: • The Secretary of State being satisfied that, as the relevant authority responsible for discharging the duty….this duty is complied with. The Secretary of State notes the response from various parties to her letter of 3 January 2025 and encourages Interested Parties to reach agreement on what might be needed to meet this duty and provide any agreed provisions to be included in the Order accordingly.” We are aware that in response to the above, the applicant is seeking to agree, with the various protected landscapes partnerships, “any measures which might be necessary to ensure the relevant duty is fulfilled.” We would like to set out that we do not believe it is appropriate for us to be involved in discussing such ‘measures’; we do not believe that demonstrating that the duty has been applied can be achieved simply in terms of identifying some enhancement measures, and would take this opportunity to highlight that we consider the duty (to further the purpose) to be on the Secretary of State in exercising their decision-making function, rather than on the proposal/application itself.”