I object to all the aspects of the "Preferred Options"proposal which relate to expansion of the airport and an increase in flights.

My objections are on global environmental grounds. Given what we now know about the science of climate change - which is much more, and generally more alarming, than we knew when the 'Future of Air Transport' White Paper was published in 2003 - I think it irresponsible of our Councils to volunteer a local contribution to an increase in the number of flights worldwide. By choosing to accelerate our local contribution to global warming I believe the Councils are failing in a duty of care to the long-term wellbeing (and in some cases, existence) of communities worldwide. Ironically, there appears to be an increasing risk of this very area becoming threatened by sea level rise.

Incidentally, that 2003 White Paper has been heavily criticised by the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, in 2003 and again in 2006. I think this consultation is unbalanced to present alignment with the White Paper as part justification for the JAAP (1.6, para 2) without touching on the many and serious criticisms the White Paper has attracted.

Not all local authorities are so unthinking in their acceptance of the White Paper's projections of demand for passenger air travel, nor the unrealistic assumptions for low oil prices, nor the unacceptable balance between the recipients of benefits and those (i.e. local residents) paying the price in their daily lives. Please look at the "Conclusions" in the Management Summary of a Review in 2005 by the South East England Regional Assembly, here:
"http://www.southeast-ra.gov.uk/documents/transport/final_aviation_report-exec_summary.pdf"

I don't understand why the aspiration for local job creation (the vast majority of jobs) are being tied to a significant expansion of numbers of flights (which may lead to a much smaller number of jobs) within a single JAAP. It creates the impression that one cannot object to airport expansion without costing jobs. This is an unnecessary and undesirable complication to the consultation process. It is clear from comments on this consultation site that the vast majority of objectors care only about the adverse impacts of airport expansion. I believe the issues here would be simplified enormously by separating this whole consultation into two separate JAAPs before taking either to the next stage of any process.



Locally, I do not believe the suggested "benefits" (airport-related job creation, ease of flying abroad for local people) outweigh the long-term distress from health and noise pollution that would necessarily be visited inescapably - due to blighted property values - upon the lives of local residents.