SECTION A : "What factors influence population, social and cultural patterns in towns?"
Task One
During the 20th century, the landscape and life of local people has changed dramatically in Crawley. Since 1900, the town has been transformed from a rural village to a modern town, with a population approaching 100 000.
Many changes have affected Crawley over the years, but without doubt the most important occurred in the late 1940s. On 12th July 1946, the Sussex and Surrey Courier carried the lead story "Crawley : Complete New Town to be built". Crawley was to become the second government designated New Town in Britain. These 'satellite towns' were planned to take the 'overspill' of population from major cities (in Crawley's case, London). By slowing the burgeoning expansion of the major conurbations, it was hoped that some of the problems of inner-city life could be solved. In 1947, the Crawley Development Corporation was set up, to 'design, build and administer a self-contained industrial town of 50,000 within 15 years'.
The first neighbourhoods to be built were West Green, Northgate, Three Bridges and Langley Green, in 1951-54. The early 'immigrants' settled in these areas, attracted by the promise of a new life away from the problems of the cities. For example, in Crawley, their children could play in front of their houses in safety. The early arrivals filled the demand for workers in the new factories. The next neighbourhoods to be built were Pound Hill, Ifield, Southgate, Tilgate and Gossops Green. By then, the demand for work was changing and the houses built here were taken up by slightly more well-off families. This rapid increase in population is evident in the population statistics from table A, with Crawley's overall population increasing from 10 707 to 53 768 between 1951 and 1961.
Since 1961, the overall population has continued to increase, however the pattern in individual neighbourhoods is more varied. The neighbourhoods can be roughly broken down into four groups.
The first of these is the early central neighbourhoods (West Green, Northgate, Three Bridges and Langley Green). These reached a peak in the 1960s/70s and then began to fall slowly. I would think that one likely reason for this is that the people who originally chose to live there are slowly moving out into the supposedly better neighbourhoods on the outskirts of the town such as Ifield and Pound Hill. In addition, the children of the families who settled there originally have now grown up and left the area to set up families of their own. The family size, and therefore total population increases.
The second group comprises the two outermost original neighbourhoods: Ifield and Pound Hill. As I mentioned above, these appear to have been swelled by movement from the central neighbourhoods outwards, increasing consistently to date. Their position on the edge of town also means they have expanded over the years, accentuating the pattern of population increase. For example, Ifield was extended in the Hyde Drive area, while Pound Hill was extended around Crabbet Park.
The third group concerns the slightly later neighbourhoods (1956-62) built once more around the centre of town, namely Southgate, Tilgate, Gossops Green and Furnace Green. Once again, these showed a large initial growth, this time peaking in around 1970-80 followed by a slow subsequent decline. These neighbourhoods appear to have fallen victim to movements outwards once again. It is noticeable that the eight central neighbourhoods have lost population in recent years, while the five outer neighbourhoods have gained in population (see map).
This leaves just Broadfield, Bewbush, and brand-new neighbourhood Maidenbower. Bewbush and Broadfield's massive increase in population have done much to reverse the decline in other neighbourhoods since 1981. A sizeable proportion of Crawley's council housing can be found in these two neighbourhoods, 'boosting' their totals significantly. The rest of the housing in these areas is reasonably cheap by Crawley standards and easily available, making it attractive to buyers. At the other end of the spectrum is Maidenbower, which consists almost exclusively of private, high quality, detached and semi-detached housing. It attracts the more affluent newcomers to Crawley.
Crawley is very much a working town - people come here to work in local light and service industry and at the airport. It is also ideal for commuters who can travel by train direct into London. Its pleasant environment makes it attractive to families with children. The town is also home to a significant ethnic population, many second-generation immigrants from other towns and cities in the UK. All these factors combine to make Crawley the unique place that it is today.
Task Two
See also attached map
The ethnic distribution in Crawley is very marked between the various neighbourhoods, ranging from 22% of the population being of ethnic origin in Langley Green compared to just 2.4% in Maidenbower.
The three neighbourhoods with the most people of ethnic origin are Langley Green, Bewbush and Broadfield. Langley Green is ideally situated for immigrants who wish to work at the airport, or in the Manor Royal industrial estate. Here there is a large demand for labour, especially for low-skilled and low-paid service industry jobs.
Broadfield and Bewbush have some of the largest proportions of council housing in Crawley, making them an important 'safety-net' for some of the members of the ethnic community. The major growth years of these neighbourhoods were in the 1980s, when some 'second-generation' immigrants might be moving away from their parents' homes, in the major inner cities, to find a home elsewhere. Many of those of non-UK origin were then in the lower economic groupings, so that cheap but relatively large housing was an incentive to them.
By contrast, the housing in Maidenbower has attracted relatively few people of ethnic origin. Its expensive houses and good transport links, including the new slip road on to the M23, have made it more popular with commuters and people who work outside the area.
Task Three
b) See also attached map
The pattern of social status on the map of Crawley that I have drawn is quite marked. The highest-ranking neighbourhoods are situated on the eastern fringe of the town, close to the M23. The next highest-ranking are the older neighbourhoods bordering those in the centre, followed by some of the oldest neighbourhoods in the centre itself. The neighbourhoods with the lowest ranking are generally those built later and found on the southern and western fringes of the town. Not all the neighbourhoods fit so well into this pattern. For example Ifield West is slightly lower than might be expected while Langley Green, a neighbourhood built not long before Pound Hill, comes last. Some neighbourhoods have had further development since they were built originally, which has affected the social balance in these areas. The Crabbet Park development in Pound Hill is a good example.
The neighbourhoods with the highest ranking by social status are Pound Hill (North and South), together with Maidenbower. These areas consist to a great extent of high-quality, high-cost housing, mainly privately owned. The percentage of council housing is relatively low. The private houses can only be afforded by those with reasonably well-paid jobs, so the percentage of unemployed is also low. The houses are large, so overcrowding is rare and most people can afford one or more cars. Many people who live in these neighbourhoods work outside the area, making use of the excellent local transport links.
In contrast, the four neighbourhoods with the lowest social status rank are Tilgate, Broadfield, Bewbush and Langley Green. There are several possible reasons for this. These neighbourhoods have generally smaller, cheaper houses. Those who cannot afford houses in other areas will look here where the prices are lower. There is also a high proportion of council housing, and in general this accommodation is more likely to be allocated to those who are unemployed or otherwise disadvantaged. Fewer residents can afford a car and some houses can become over-crowded (more than one person per room). The sizable ethnic minorities in these areas (for example 22% are of non-UK origin in Langley Green) often have large families living under the same roof.
c) I have now produced two maps, map A showing the ethnic distribution of population in Crawley and map B showing the social status ranking in the same area. Looking generally at the two maps, at first glance the clearest and most pleasing to the eye is map B. The colouring shows the basic pattern clearly while the numbers themselves provide the actual rankings. However the map does not show sufficient information to be much use in itself. There is no indication of the actual data used to calculate the ranking or any sense of proportion. How much 'better' did Pound Hill perform than Langley Green? It is a question map B cannot answer. This choropleth-type map would have probably been better suited for displaying raw data, such as population density, rather than these relative rankings.
Map A, by contrast, looks rather complicated at first glance. However a closer inspection reveals more information than map B. The pie charts give the approximate size of the ethnic population while the written percentage provide the actual data for direct comparisons. The pie chart is particularly suitable here, as it shows the fraction of the whole neighbourhood's population which comprises people of ethnic origin. This could be taken one step further by making the total area of each pie chart proportional to the population of the neighbourhood.
On balance, I would have to choose map A as being the most effective. Its mini-pie chart technique could also have been used with other social statistics, such as the percentage of owner-occupied and council housing. These pie-charts would also have been easier to read, as the values vary more than the actual data I used for map A.
SECTION B : "Where are different activities located? How and why is economic land use within settlements changing?"
a) & b) See enclosed map
c) Since some of the values I recorded were rather extreme, I decided to calculate the median average rather than the mean. As you can see, this gives a much fairer picture. The standard deviation row shows just how much these rogue results affect the overall values.
d) See enclosed sheet of diagrams
e) See also enclosed map
On the accompanying map, I have tried to present the shopping patterns in Crawley in a style akin to Christaller's model. In some ways Crawley fits the model very well, while in other ways it is very unlike Christaller's model.
The town centre, in the centre of the map, has a large catchment area supplying high-order goods and is very similar to the model. In fact, its catchment area covers all of the town and beyond, since people all over Crawley are willing to go into the town centre to buy some items, like clothes.
The neighbourhood parades also fit the pattern very well - when Crawley's layout was being designed, the planners wanted each neighbourhood to be a more-or-less self-contained unit. Each contains its own central parade of shops where it was planned that residents could do their day to day shopping. This also explains one of the peculiarities of Crawley's shopping hierarchy - the scarcity of corner shops. Since most low-order, convenience goods like bread, milk and other groceries could be provided by the local parades, there was little need for many corner shops.
Christaller wrote about his ideas in 1933, and since then many things have changed. The major change in shopping during the late 20th century has been the growth of out-of-town superstores and retail parks. Crawley, embracing new shopping habits such as these, has seen a number of such stores and parks, including the large County Oak, spring up in relatively recent times. The shops in this category do not really fit into Christaller's model, but have had a disproportionate effect. The superstores have for many people replaced the parades for day to day shopping, and in consequence the parades have declined.
There are a number of reasons why such superstores have become increasing popular. Increased car ownership and the growth of two-car families mean that people can travel further to stores to shop. Improved urban roads enable shoppers and delivery lorries to travel more easily and quickly to edge-of-town shopping centres. Many shoppers now buy in bulk at a supermarket once a week or month. For them, this saves time and money. Space to expand is also cheaper and more freely available on the edge of town. As more people, especially women, go into paid employment, they no longer have time to shop daily. Superstores have responded to these pressures by opening later in the evenings and on Sundays. Hazelwick Tesco has gone as far as opening 24 hours a day!
f) The opening of County Mall was probably the single greatest change in Crawley's town centre since its designation as a New Town.
The opening of this large shopping centre has entirely shifted the focus of shopping in Crawley away from the older shopping areas, especially the High Street. Many of the large chain stores have moved into County Mall, including Boots and WH Smiths from Queen's Square, the Early Learning Centre and Hamells from the Broadway, InterSport from the Broadwalk, Burger King from the Martlets and Halifax from the High Street.
The major movement away from these older streets led to something of a decline in these areas, with discount and 'everything must go' stores becoming common. Empty premises were hard to fill as new shops chose the rapidly expanding County Mall. In our shopping surveys, we found that over 60% of people visit the High Street less since County Mall's opening.
The opening of County Mall has had its positive aspects too, however. The centre has attracted new shops like Debenhams, BHS, New Look, Virgin Megastore, Tie Rack, Thorntons, the Disney Store and Waterstones. The influx of big-name stores like these have made Crawley a leading shopping town in the South East and the biggest in West Sussex. This attracts people from many miles away, for example when carrying out a survey in Queen's Square as part of Section C of this project, we met people from Horsham, East Grinstead and even the Isle of Man!
County Mall has meant that there is a much wider choice of goods in the town centre, and made shopping a reasonable proposition for all weathers.
So to the future. Already the balance seems to be swinging back. Great efforts have been made in the past few years by the council to improve the old shopping areas. The Martlets has been extensively redeveloped, Queen's Square has been repaved, access to the Broadway has been restricted to buses only, the Broadwalk has been re-landscaped and the High Street pedestrianised. All these changes have made shopping in the older parts of Crawley a much more pleasant experience. The market now once again takes place along the High Street.
Already, the signs of success are showing, with most of the discount stores going and new stores springing up along the redeveloped Martlets. As a town planner I think it would be important to encourage this regeneration, investing in road improvements and so on. An example of a road which needs such funding is The Pavement, now a little the worse for wear. It is also important to encourage the chain stores which have remained loyal to the old town, such as Littlewoods, Woolworths and Superdrug, to remain.
The influence of County Mall at first looked though it might be a death blow to Queen's Square and the other older shopping areas, but now the prosperity brought by County Mall seems to be assisting in their regeneration. The villain has turned saviour.
SECTION C : "What priorities about the future of land do different people have and how can planning help to resolve issues about the use of land?"
Planning issues at Gatwick Airport
1. Introduction
Although licensed for flying in 1930, Gatwick Airport did not officially become an airport until June 1936. It became London's second airport with its re-opening in 1958 and the second terminal went into operation in March 1988.
In 1990, the Government set up a working group to examine runway capacity to serve the South East, known as RUCATSE. The group published their report in 1993. The report proposed a number of possible developments at Heathrow, Stansted, Luton and Gatwick. The Gatwick proposal was to build a second runway to the north of the existing one.
Expansion of air capacity in the south-east is without doubt a necessity. Part of the RUCATSE report estimated that passenger numbers would grow by 300% from about 38 million passengers in 1992 to a staggering 150 million passengers in 2020.
The proposal was an extremely contentious one, however, and was met with huge opposition from local residents, not least with those of Charlwood, a village which would be almost destroyed by the development. Local councils were also against the idea, and the fight was eagerly taken up by the media.
Another important factor was a agreement made between West Sussex County Council and the British Airports Authority not to build a second runway at Gatwick until the year 2019. The validity of this agreement was one of the key points in the argument
The site of the planned runway is shown on the map overleaf. The magnitude of the task is immediately apparent, as is the precarious position of Charlwood between the two runways.
The alternatives to building at Gatwick were set out in the RUCATSE report and were as follows:
2. How the information was collected
We used five basic strategies to collect information for our research. These were as follows:
a) Library visit - Crawley library, 21/12/98
This was the first port of call for our research. We began in the Local Studies Room, where we found a copy of the RUCATSE report and some other related material to read. We also photocopied some useful pages and maps from the report. A librarian found us a file on the second runway, from which we photocopied some relevant newspaper articles and some OS map extracts. As well as using the reference section, we also borrowed some general books on the airport and British aviation.
b) Questionnaire
The questionnaire was one of the most ambitious parts of our project. We thought it would give a much fairer and more interesting view if we surveyed three different groups of people. The Charlwood survey gave us the opinions of those who would live close to the new runway. The Gatwick survey, of airport staff, gave us the opinions of those who actually work at the airport. The Queen's Square survey was meant to give us a general cross-section of 'neutral' people living in Crawley.
The survey consisted of ten statements to which the respondents had to pick one of five replies :
We printed the statements and responses out onto ten sheets of A4 paper and then put them in order into a presentation folder containing plastic wallets, to create a 'flip chart'. This was very practical, enabling us to flip between questions quickly and easily, as well as protecting the paper from the elements. An example of one of these sheets is given overleaf.
c) Interview, Peter Barclay 23/1/99
We were able to obtain an interview with Peter Barclay, one of the leading campaigners against the second runway. We taped the interview at his house and later played
back the tape to produce a transcript, given in section 3.
d) Sending letters, 22/12/98
We sent three letters to organisations heavily involved in the plans: BAA (the British Airports Authority); the Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee (via West Sussex County Council); and Surrey County Council's Environment Division.
A copy of the letter I sent is given overleaf
The information I was sent by the organisations was varied, some of it more useful than others. Details of the information I was sent is given below:
e) Site visit - 23/1/99 and 31/1/99
We viewed both the existing runway, in the new Skyview facility, and the proposed site of the new runway, as well as Lowfield Heath, a village to the south of the present runway where airport uses have now taken over completely. We took photographs and made notes to complement our project.
3. Presentation of Results
1) Library material
Useful material from the library included a copy of the RUCATSE report, some relevant maps, including some interesting noise contour comparisons, and some newspaper cuttings. My findings are found on the next few pages.
2) Survey results
Details of the survey sample are given at the end of the results from individual questions.
a) Gatwick Airport is vital for the local economy
This statement elicited very positive responses from almost all groupings, especially the Gatwick workers, where over three-quarters chose 'strongly agree'. In total only two from 75 respondents did not agree or strongly agree.
b) The airport buildings are ugly and intrusive
This question provoked much hilarity from the Gatwick workers, although only 48% actually agreed with the statement. The group who disagreed the most was, interestingly enough, Charlwood, where 44% decided they didn't mind the buildings. There was a high percentage of 'neither agree nor disagree' responses in all three groups.
c) Air travel is the mode of transport for the 21st century
Unsurprisingly, the Gatwick workers were the most positive about this statement, with a sizeable 56% strongly agreeing. The Charlwood residents were also very supportive, with all but two respondents picking 'agree' or 'strongly agree'. The only respondents to disagree were found in Queen's Square, although the main pattern was still strongly in favour.
d) Noise pollution from Gatwick is a serious problem
This was the first question in which the responses of the groupings began to diverge noticeably. The Charlwood residents were unsurprisingly the most negative about noise, with 64% agreeing, 12% of them strongly, while Gatwick workers were the keenest to disagree. Many Gatwick workers also gave neutral responses.
e) Living near Gatwick is very convenient
The Gatwick workers obviously find proximity useful, and this is reflected in their responses, with 80% agreeing, 32% strongly. The Charlwood residents, despite other reservations about the airport, felt similarly - although none were willing to rise to a 'strongly agree'!
f) Not enough notice is taken of the views of local residents in airport issues
Once again, there was an obvious difference in opinion to this statement. Charlwood residents are the most aggrieved, with 16 out of 25 agreeing, 5 strongly. Queen's Square answers were finely balanced, while the Gatwick workers were firmly against, clearly believing that the local residents have had quite enough say already!
g) There is too much strain on current facilities at Gatwick
The responses from Charlwood and the town centre were strangely similar to this question, with 10 and 11 people agreeing respectively. Those 'in the know' at Gatwick, however, were more forthright, with 72% agreeing, 36% strongly.
At Gatwick, there were also some interesting additional comments, including that the North Terminal is over-stretched but not the South, and that 'there are so many delays because there's only one runway' (we hadn't even mentioned a second runway up to this point!)
h) To me, air pollution from Gatwick is a serious concern
Generally, people seemed slightly more concerned about air pollution than about noise. In Charlwood, some 76% were concerned, suggesting the problem is taken seriously there. Many Gatwick workers were also concerned, in this case significantly more than were concerned about noise.
i) I use the airport's facilities regularly (not for work)
Surprisingly, it was the Gatwick workers who used the airport least for other purposes. The general view, expressed by several respondents, including a BAA worker, appeared to be 'I don't come here unless I have to!'. On a more serious note, Charlwood residents certainly appear to hold no qualms about using the facilities on their doorstep, and a similar pattern was found in Queen's Square, where over half the replies were 'agree or 'strongly agree'.
j) I would support the building of a second runway
The 64-million dollar question provoked the most 'stereo-typical' responses. The Gatwick workers tended to be in favour, with 48% agreeing (12% strongly) compared to just 32% disagreeing (though 24% of these were strongly disagreeing). Several Gatwick workers commented that it would bring more work, but for some other factors seemed to take precedence.
The responses from Queen's Square were finely balanced, with 10 for the statement and 11 against, though there were 3 'strongly agrees' to just 2 'strongly disagrees'.
Moving finally to Charlwood, the surprise was not the answers themselves, but the unanimity with which they were given. From the 25 respondents, not a single one agreed. 52% strongly disagreed, 36% disagreed, and just 12% remained neutral.
Survey sample
The survey took place on three successive Saturdays at three locations: Queen's Square, Crawley; Charlwood; and Gatwick Airport (Concorde House, South Terminal). For each respondent, we noted down whether their sex and an estimate for their age. The Charlwood sample were generally older, while the Gatwick sample was, unsurprisingly, of working age and slightly male-dominated. The Queen's Square showed the largest spread of ages, and was slightly female-dominated.
3) Interview Transcript
What was your role in the campaign against the second runway?
Only as a member of the village, so actively supporting the campaign - there were a number of public meetings for the dissemination of information. so I was just a volunteer worker.
What were the attitudes of the different local councils involved?
The local councils were predominantly against the second runway, although there was a slight tendency of those councils further away, such as those around the Heathrow area, being for it in some ways, because it would take the stress off Heathrow.
Does that also apply to the county councils?
Yes, the county councils tended to be against it, and this brought up another problem in that West Sussex County Council had signed a legal agreement with the British Airports Authority not to build a second runway until after 2019, and it transpired that this could be overruled in Parliament. Certainly, though, West Sussex and Surrey, the two main councils involved, were against it.
I don't think the the group as it stood could spend the money to get proper legal advice, although should the issue of the agreement ever have come up - if BAA or the Government had ever turned round and said that could be overruled, then they certainly would have sought proper legal advice.
Was it just the people of Charlwood coming together, or were there any specific organisations?
Yes, there was one organisation, the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign, although that wasn't set up specifically for the opposition to the runway - it had existed for quite a while. Its purpose is really to liaise with the airport on any matters of expansion, any environmental matter, of course the runway was a very serious one, Because it was there as a vehicle it ended up being the leader of the campaign.
Is the organisation independent of the airport authorities?
Oh yes, its a totally independent organisation, financed by subscriptions. Although Charlwood produces a fair number of these groups, the surrounding villages of Neudigate, Leigh, this side of Rusper, and on the other side out as far as Edenbridge, if you look at the line of the runway, and all the villages it goes not so much through as much as past, they all joined in, so there was quite a big movement. Little splinter groups were being set up in different communities to work together.
What were your main reasons for opposing the second runway?
The runway would have virtually destroyed the village, the plan of the runway actually finished just up in my bedroom over there! It was proposed to go down towards Sidlow, in that direction, and it was just the destruction of farmland, private houses, the whole environment. I mean it wasn't just the runway: the whole area around it, effectively in a five-mile radius, would be sterile.
And Charlwood would be trapped in between the two runways?
Well, it would and it wouldn't, the way that they'd have staggered the runway, but yes, it would be stuck out on a limb, A lot of the village would be totally unliveable in. It's a very historic village, but it's not just the history of it. It would just be progress for progress' sake, it would not achieve anything, there'd be no contribution to the community.
When the RUCATSE report came out in 1990, were you at all expecting anything like this?
Oh I think yes, certainly, both the individuals in the village and the groups, were well aware that developments could seriously affect the village. We knew there would be plans to expand. A second runway has always been mooted, it has always been bandied about as a possibility.
The reply from the Government came out in 1995, Now that there is a new Government, do you think the issue, might be re-opened, or do you think the situation is safeguarded until 2019?
Well I really don't know and I think, unfortunately, that there has never been a cohesive air-transport policy, ever, since aviation began, No government will lay down plans and stick to it, they may change their minds. It is always a fear that the possibility is there. It is unfortunately used as a political tool, the second runway business. The reality is that if any government were, say, to decide to build a second runway, tomorrow, by the time the process of public enquiry was resolved, assuming everything is proved and it all goes through, the land required to be purchased, and so on, by the time the building is completed, the supposed air transport needs are no longer there!
I mean, it is used as a political tool so people said "Oh yes, we'll protect you from the second runway" while the other ones say "We've got to build a second runway". a government might say "Well OK, we won't build a fifth terminal at Heathrow, we'll build a second runway at Gatwick", easing the pressure in the Heathrow area politically, but it adding pressure here. So the new Government is no certainty until they sit down and put a cohesive aviation policy down.
Personally, if there wasn't going to be a second runway at Gatwick, what do you think would be the best alternative?
I think expanding one of the existing airports such as Manston, or possibly Bournemouth, or looking at building a new airport. I would look for the Minister of Transport at the time and build it in his back yard! But yes, a fifth airport is certainly needed - or perhaps extending somewhere like Stansted which is totally under-used.
In the report, there was suggestions of building a new airport somewhere on the Thames estuary, What are your feelings on that?
Well yes, the idea of it is good, but I suspect that the cost of it in modern day terms - going back to governments and parties - well they would just never wear the cost, It probably would be worthwhile in the long run, but you'll never get a government willing to spend an amount of money like that, and if there's no government support, you won't get industry support, so the actual cost would knock it down - but it was quite a good idea. If it had been started when they first though of it, that could have been out of the way by now. It has been done in other countries, it's worked very well in Japan
There's obviously quite a slow timescale on these things, for example the group was set up in 1990, they published their report in 1993, and the government's response was not until 1995.
Yes, I suppose it relates partially to the freedom of speech we have in this country, that slows it down to a certain extent, because there's the right to respond, there's the right to object, and we do seem to like this bureaucratic environment. So whilst it is slow, that's a benefit, but the government can still say "Right, we're going to go ahead with it, and you've got 30 days to respond." We've experienced that with one or two application from the National Health trust, that they've made recently around here, where they've put applications in to the planning authority right on the last day for the application to be heard at the next hearing, thus reducing the amount of time for objectors to object - there no reason why other organisations wouldn't do the same!
So when the decision came out in effect not to build, what do you think was the main cause of it - was it the protests from local residents or was it other factors?
Impossible to tell. Certainly the protests of local residents had a serious impact in bringing it to people's attention, It actually brought it to the attention of people outside the community - they learnt that there was in fact a community which lived very close to Gatwick. You can talk to people as close as towns in Kent, They say "Where do you live?", "Near Gatwick", "Oh?". Yes, they've no knowledge of what the area is at all, just as we don't have any knowledge of their towns, although they may live only 20 miles away.
It brought it to the attention of people who would otherwise not be aware of the problem. So that helped. The sheer cost of the civil engineering task that they proposed to undertake, by digging a cutting through the hill here, that probably put them off a bit. I'd have thought the civil engineers would have said "It's a great project, we'd be delighted in playing with this, but totally impractical". That probably put them off as well as the fact that there is no cohesive air-transport policy, so they weren't going to make the decision. Politically, that would have lost them all their votes, and they were very sensitive to losing votes!
To build a new runway and staff the terminal, there would have to have been a lot of immigrants into the area, a migration of something like 27 000 people. What problems do you think that might have caused?
Yes, a massive number of people moving into the area which there's no infra-structure to support, no roads, shops, schools. The public transport around the airport is absolutely abysmal, If you work at the airport and you live on a north to south line, you can get to work. If you live east or west of the airport it's impossible, there's no public transport. With predominantly shift work, it makes it even worse.
There was a suggestion to build housing to the south-west of Horsham, but that that obviously had problems too.
Yes, it would be totally destroying a rural area, and that would again cause more problems. Because there's no cohesive policy, there nothing to guide them through, the full impact on the whole country is not considered.
Moving ahead to 2019, do you think a new runway probably will be built?
No, I doubt it. The need for it will have disappeared, the transport links will have changed, The technology, especially the IT technology will have helped that, video conferencing is now slowly starting to happen, e-mail, the Internet, all those items are assisting in communications, and aren't requiring an individual to travel at all. There is growth, but there won't be so much requirement to build a second runway. Plus we're still thinking about aeroplanes which are powered by a finite fuel source - it's still crude oil in effect. It's a bit of a shame, because my main business is selling jet fuel!
I suppose most people think of air transport as a modern form of transport, but it isn't really, the technology has been there for years.
Yes, it is very sophisticated equipment and technology, but using very out-of-date practices.
If a runway was to be built, do you think that it would be built to the north of Charlwood? Are there any other positions that might be considered? There were some possibilities of a southern runway.
I believe there is still serious consideration of building one within the airport boundaries, which doesn't breach the 2019 agreement, though the cost of it would again be limiting - would they get a real commercial advantage? There is an emergency runway there already , if the main runway is blocked due to an accident, work in progress, or whatever, the existing emergency runway which operates on one of the taxi-ways comes into action, It works fine, so why have another one?
In the plans themselves, there were some important historic sites, including an SSSI, Edolph's Copse, a lot of listed buildings, is there any protection at all from them?
Again no, I think there's 57 buildings in Charlwood that were built before 1500. They are Grade 1 listed buildings, If you owned one of them and you wanted to change the outside of it or the inside of it - you can't do it! Yet if you're a government and you want to knock it down or build a runway past it, you can. So yes, there is protection, but protection against who and for what? The SSSIs, there have been a number of cases in motorways planning, where they're considered to be a Site of Special Scientific Interest, but they're not interesting enough to stop a motorway being put straight through them!
And that brings up another aspect of it: compensation for the people who either lose a house because the concrete's actually going to roll over them, or their house is affected because it becomes very close to the runway or the flightpath. Now a lot of people say "Oh, you'll be compensated, You'll get millions. You don't! The maximum compensation you can get is 10% above the market value on the day permission is applied for. They won't pay out until they see how badly you're affected, so 15 years down the line, when the value of your house has depreciated so much its not worth having, they'll offer you 10% more than it was on the day of the planning permission. In fact, the people who are blighted, adjacent to the project, their compensation is not effective until the day the project is completed. You have three-fold problems. What protection do listed buildings get, what protection do SSSIs get and what protection do homeowners have for devaluation of property - very little.
Looking back generally at the campaign, are you pleased with the way it went?
Yes, I think Brendan Sewell, who led the campaign, did a brilliant job and I think the people who were involved in it were very pleased with the results. It certainly did have some impact; it brought it to the attention to those outside the area as well as Members of Parliament. One has to be careful not to be complacent about it. There's a little army out there ready to raise its head if the issue is re-opened, and there's a lot of people out there who've learnt about the airport who had previously ignored it, Now they can all see how important the issue is.
4) Letters : responses
The responses to my letters were quite useful in providing background information about the airport. Some of the more interesting information is summarised on the next few pages.
5) Site visits
On the next few pages are some photographs we took at the various sites and my interpretation of what the completed second runway might look like, based on one of the photographs we took.
4. Analysis of results
As you will have gathered from the previous pages, I gathered a huge amount of information for this project. Much of this had limited relevance to the second runway proposals, but nevertheless made interesting background reading. The questionnaire was my major piece of primary research and as such provided the most interesting results. The results were surprisingly close to what I had expected, particularly taking into account the relatively small sample size of 25 per group. Clearly different groups of people would be affected in various ways by a second runway and therefore have very differing views accordingly.
The residents in Charlwood would probably be the most affected by the proposals, with the second runway literally 'in their back yard'. From the survey I carried out, it appears that the Charlwood residents are generally happy with the airport as it stands. Most appreciate its benefits to the local economy and the convenience of having such an important transport link so close, with over half using the airport regularly. They were worried about air and noise pollution however, as well as the lack of concern for local residents.
As regards the second runway proposals, everyone we spoke to in Charlwood was vehemently against the idea. The residents are certain that to go ahead with such plans would almost destroy their village. Indeed they are right that the runway would seriously and irreversibly change the face of the village, though perhaps it would not be quite as bad as Peter Barclay's 'five-mile sterile zone'. The responses we received to the second runway statement seemed almost automatic - no-one even stopped to consider. The anti-runway stance seems to have been ingrained into Charlwood residents young and old and to a certain extent may not be their own personal opinion. Nevertheless, no matter how you choose to read the result, it is clear that the feelings in Charlwood are undoubtedly anti-runway.
The residents of Crawley hold a reasonably balanced view about the airport and second runway proposal. In my survey, it was almost always the Queen's Square responses which held the middle ground. They were, as with the other groups, very positive about Gatwick's importance to the local economy, the importance of air travel, Gatwick's convenience and so on. Again, well over half the respondents said they used the airport's facilities regularly.
On the second runway proposals, Crawley residents again seem to be divided - indeed my Queen's Square graph for this question seems to be almost a mirror image! 'Crawley residents' is perhaps a rather generalised group to consider and there are various sub-groups that it would be interesting to study individually : working population, the unemployed, retired, families, newcomers, ethnic groups and so on. What would matter to Crawley residents if a second runway were to be built would be not so much direct problems, like pollution, noise and house devaluations, but more the indirect problems, for example migration into the area and the loss of countryside nearby. Many Crawley residents will have also read newspaper articles highlighting the problems a second runway would bring to villages like Charlwood, and can thus empathise with the villagers.
The Gatwick Airport workers are perhaps the most 'interesting' group. Most of them obviously owe their livelihood to the airport and the work it brings, but they have to balance this against the problems a second runway would cause. In my survey, the Gatwick workers were very positive about Gatwick's importance to the local economy, air travel and Gatwick's convenience, but more negative about local residents' concerns. Many also said there was no noise pollution problem (as the planes flew deafeningly overhead!) They were the only group to really appreciate that there is too much strain on the current facilities at Gatwick.
As regards the second runway, the Gatwick workers tended to be in favour, though the responses were nothing like as unanimous as the views in Charlwood. In fact, the number 'strongly disagreeing' was quite high. The Gatwick workers seemed to fall mainly into two camps. The first group thought a second runway would bring more work and perhaps secure them their job in this current uncertain economic climate. The second camp were vehemently against the proposals, believing, like the Charlwood residents, that the social and environmental costs would be too great.
There were several questions where the views from the three groups we surveyed were quite similar. Most were neutral about the airport buildings' 'ugliness' and there was a consensus that 'air travel is the mode of transport for the 21st century'.
I move now to my interview with Peter Barclay. His views, though individual, certainly reflect some of the more forthright views of Charlwood residents. Mr Barclay's main view (as well as being his favourite phrase) was that we need "a cohesive air-transport policy". Although he certainly does not 'trust' any council or government, he does not think a second runway will now be built and I have to say that I probably agree. BAA's official policy line is now "two terminals, one runway"- at least until 2019, which at least rules out the possibility in the short-term and probably in the long-term.
5. Conclusions
In my opinion, it would now be extremely difficult to build a second runway as per the original plans. As Peter Barclay said, "There's a little army out there ready to raise its head if the issue is re-opened." Bringing back into consideration such a contentious issue would be political and probably economic suicide.
Whatever the arguments, it seems likely no action will now be taken at Gatwick until at least 2019, when the BAA/WSCC agreement expires, and by then events may have taken a different turn. Perhaps, as the Charlwood residents think, the costs of expansion at Gatwick really are too high. My flip-picture showing the site before and after development is rather light-hearted, but there is a serious side to it. Looking at the picture of Lowfield Heath, it would be a travesty to allow Charlwood to suffer a similar fate. Charlwood contains more pre-1500 buildings than the whole of North America, yet all this could be effectively destroyed
So what should be done instead? There are several alternatives...
One option that will almost certainly be taken up to some extent is the development of regional airports. This will certainly satisfy the demand for some time, but it still seems likely that demand will eventually outstrip supply. It is hard enough to persuade people to fly from Stansted or Luton let alone trying to expand ever smaller aerodromes such as Denham, Manston or Redhill.
If regional airports cannot satisfy demand then sooner or later we will come back to square one. Either a major south-eastern airport must be expanded, or a new one must be built. Both have their own problems. Almost any plans, as we have seen, incur the wrath of local residents - and there are precious few sparsely populated, cheap, unprotected spaces in the south-east. The Thames estuary was one idea suggested by the RUCATSE report. The Government could do a lot worse than to look further into these ideas.
Without expansion, what options are left? At Gatwick, perhaps the emergency runway could be used in tandem with the first - but then what would happen if one was out of use?
Maybe the problem is that people aren't considering the wider issues - not airport capacity, but transport in general. The Government could encourage people to use ferries, the Channel tunnel or high-speed rail links instead of letting the plane take the strain.
My personal view is that no one single policy will ever solve the problems of airport capacity. What is needed is some regional airport expansion, investigations into new sites for airports and investment into alternative forms of transport. Perhaps soon we won't need to travel by air so much, as communication technologies like the Internet and video-conferencing invade every home, shop, school and business. The future of air-transport lies in the balance ...
6. Evaluation
Overall, I was very pleased with the way the project went as a whole. Notwithstanding this, there were several things I might do differently next time.
The library visit went reasonably well, though I felt we were a little overwhelmed by the amount of information. The difficulty was not in finding it, but in sieving through and selecting what was important. the interview also went well, though if I were to carry it out again, I would place the cassette recorder closer to the interviewee, so that it came out rather more clearly on the tape!
The questionnaire, once again, went quite well, though we were hampered by a number of minor problems. One was the slow speed of responses - in Queen's Square it took us several hours to gather all 25. This was mainly due to out initial lack of confidence about approaching people. However, with time and practice, our confidence grew rapidly. Our main problem in Charlwood was the local Neighbourhood Watch scheme, whereby a large number of residents had put up stickers stating that they would only answer the door to people with ID. Certainly, I would prepare such documents in advance if I were to repeat the exercise.
The sources we used seemed to us to be valid, but by no means unbiased! This was why we decided to interview a range of different groups. Promotional literature from BAA and so on was also naturally biased towards shedding a good light on the airport. Peter Barclay was probably the most 'biased' source, but also the most interesting!
It would not be hard to extend the investigation to consider either different groups of people, an extended set of statements or indeed other airports or airport projects. One issue which immediately springs to mind is the possible expansion of Redhill.
Anyone with an interest in Gatwick might be interested to read our report. Hopefully it gives a reasonably fair and interesting background to the issues at the airport. I would hope anyone who did read it would have as much enjoyment as I did writing it.
Matthew Mayer