To: Future Development of Air Transport - South East Department for Transport Zone 1/28C Freepost LON 17806 London SW1P 4YS 25th September 2002 To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my extreme disapproval regarding the proposed plans to expand air traffic at Luton airport. I am appalled by the tone of the Consultation Document, which seems to adopt a stance of dictating how certain parties would like things to happen in order to justify their own financially-driven motives, with little regard for the opinions of the people of Britain. It is easy to massage figures of 'projected demand' in order to clinch new funding. However, air travel is unlikely to continue expanding at the recent booming rate brought on by the sudden influx of cheap-rate airlines. Remember the dot.coms and look at the current state of the IT/telecoms industry before considering massive investment in new airports that we don't really need. Besides, increased air traffic just exacerbates the problems of road congestion as most people travel in private cars or taxis to airports. The region cannot cope at the moment, with rush hour traffic in Hitchin and Luton at a standstill, let alone with more cars added. This also means more pollution, more stress, more wasted time and money. Building a new road will only create more traffic. Who will want to fly from Luton once they've experienced the nightmare of getting to the airport? Any informed reading of this Consultation Document will surely question the fallacy of investing in an airport that is built on top of a hill and susceptible to fog and snow. Extending the existing runway will provide a ridiculously wasteful engineering challenge to landfill a valley, causing possible flood damage elsewhere. Building the realigned runway will disturb residents in Hitchin, Letchworth, Harpenden and Redbourn, which although outside the 57dB contour, will be subjected to unacceptable noise. I am also concerned about possible impact on Someries Castle, one of the oldest brick buildings in the county, an Ancient Monument which has survived for six hundred years. (See http://www.southbeds.gov.uk/places-to-go/villages/hyde.htm for more information.) What other listed buildings would be threatened? The schemes for new runways would both destroy 80ha of Green Belt land, which is unacceptable, as this land should, by definition, not be exploited. Even without a new runway, the proposed construction of a taxi-way parallel to the present runway would lead to increased numbers of aeroplanes using the airport, presenting unacceptable rises in the noise suffered by the people of Hertfordshire. One can no longer walk in our beautiful countryside without being continually harassed by the offensive droning and rumbling of aircraft, and residents on flight paths are assaulted with trauma-inducing noise levels. Could I ask what measures for compensation and soundproofing of residents' homes are being considered? Double-glazing will not have much effect with jumbo jets overhead. Loft insulation, false ceilings, double/triple partition walls and floating floors may alleviate the unpleasant experience of massive engines roaring above a property, yet they will substantially reduce the interior dimensions of the rooms and cost a great deal. Who is liable to pay these costs? People in the 'Public Safety Zone' (who have good reason to fear for their own public safety, especially with the greater risk now from air terrorism) should be eligible for sound-insulation work to be undertaken, and receive financial remuneration or relocation expenses. Likewise, other affected residents outside the 63dB contour should also be eligible for considerable compensation for putting up with the noise, pollution and disruption to life during construction of the runway and roads, not to mention the fall in property value. People should be made aware of the hidden costs of air travel, and not lured by advertisements of cheap flights. The UK is facing an urgent need to cut its CO2 emissions by 2010, hence we must reduce pollution by taxing aviation fuel, forcing airlines to pay these real costs of air travel. It is up to governments to make it harder for them to profit at peoples' expense, and not encourage this exploitation in the name of 'Keeping air fares low', 'Maintaining London's position as a leading world city', and 'Attracting visitors to the UK'. People will not flock to a noisy, polluted, congested place; instead our own citizens will just want to escape to other countries to spend their money. The other schemes described in the Document, at Heathrow, Cliffe and Stansted, are all unacceptable for various reasons. That consultants should be paid to plan to build an airport on a marshland (in a region facing increasing flood risk as the land sinks and the sea rises) beggars belief, without even considering the danger to passengers of aircraft collisions with the large bird colonies there. Destroying churches and listed buildings is not an option. I encourage you to take a more realistic view of the situation than portrayed in the Consultation Document and see that none of these plans is commercially viable or desirable. Thank you for your time. I hope to hear from you soon. Yours faithfully, Malcolm Smith