------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLAUCUS HOUSE :
Tel: 01273 465433
EMail: bmlss@compuserve.com
Shoreham.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments
on
I am a supporter of
However, this does not mean that I support the
realignment and the new runway as I have serious reservations about the merits
of such a project and after careful consideration I consider that the scheme
has no merits whatsoever and considerable disadvantages resulting in the
destruction of the way of life for local people.
Expansion or Die
Whilst inkling to the view that the provision of services
for light aircraft and pleasure craft and air shows is exactly that a service
rather than a profit making enterprise, it has become an established service
for the last 90 years or so and should continue. At a guess, I would say the
income for the airport probably comes from the property interests.
Bearing all this in mind, I would consider it reckless and
foolhardy to invest in an expansion enterprise with no guarantee of success and
put at risk the current operational airfield.
The success of a public transport airport will depend on the
popularity amongst airlines, which will depend on the facilities on offer and
the local demand.
The facilities are hampered by the space being too small to
accommodate a large runway with no possibility of expansion.
The demand is restricted (compared to
Transport Strategy
The local “travel to work” transport strategy is so awry as
to make me believe that the Government pays mere lip service to such items.
However, there is no reason to make things worse for no real reason. It makes
sense to me to use and improve the established rail services to Gatwick for an
additional runway, rather than make the customers travel and additional journey
to Shoreham, whether transferring from an incoming flight, or travelling down
from
Noise and the Environment
At the moment the benefits of the airfield with the noise
and the occasional fuel pollution and crash landings make it worthwhile to
keep. Afterall, the local people can be said to have chosen to live with the
current airfield, or despite of it. However, in view of the prevailing opinion,
it would never have been foreseen that a large expansion is envisaged, by the
simple tape measure expedient on an OS map: there is just not enough room!
Noise at the moment is acceptable, except for the
helicopters which are a great noise nuisance wherever on the airfield, the
north-west being just as bad as the south-east. However, with all the high
density homes being built in Shoreham, combined with town cramming, increasing
road traffic, there is a great need to get out of the noise and the only places
to do this are the
If
Regeneration and the Local Job Shortage
It is accepted that the local job opportunities are dire and
that in this instance I could be expected to support the airport and aircraft
expansion because of the regeneration effect.
Nothing could be more from the truth, and my main objection
to the plans is exactly this aspect of the plans. It fails to address the needs
of the local economy in providing more jobs, because it fails to make the best
use of the land between the airport and Lancing and effectively puts a blight
on any sustainable development (highly suitable area because of the good
transport links), puts the blocker on other environment improvements in
Lancing, like a new north-south relief road, relocation of sports pitches and
new facilities, proper drainage for New Monks Farm. All these improvements
could be possible with the current runway, but would be impossible with the
realignment new runway.
Strategic Gap
This concept is out of date for New Monks Farm and has been
for thirty years or more. However, this does not neglect its importance as an
open space (with important wildlife interests: Water Voles, Willow Tits, Barn
Owls, three rare species plus others). It should be a Strategic Link
(sustainable transport paths east-west) with public access to the land as part
of a development with public advantages. This does not look feasible in the
vicinity of aircraft landing and no advantages accrue to the public (we/I want
public access as a planning gain).
Summary:
I am opposed to the new Option B runway because:
1) It is detrimental to best course regeneration of the Adur district.
(A better plan could be drawn up.)
2) It is detrimental to the best environmental and social
interests of the Strategic Gap and the whole of Adur.
3) It is a risky and dodgy enterprise that has little chance of
success and could threaten the viability of the current airport. (The area is
too small for a new runway).
Yours faithfully,
Andy Horton.