Sally Pavey’s comment on the CAA’s Gatwick PIR – it ‘ignored’ human cost of changed flight paths
Responding to the publication of the PIR (Post Implementation Review of Gatwick flight path changes since 2013, Sally Pavey (Chair of CAGNE) commented that it was “extremely disappointing”. It concluded that only the departure route taking off to the west, and heading north, had to change. Local group, Plane Wrong, welcomed that admission, but are dismayed by the CAA’s conclusion that the easterly departure route does not need to be changed. The PIR said a route towards the south-coast and another heading east were acceptable but should be reviewed by Gatwick; the remaining six routes did not need to change. Sally said the PIR now needed to be reviewed by the Aviation Minister, Robert Goodwill: “For a Government, in this day and age, to implement and subject residents to such an airspace concentrated system without any research into the noise readings or emissions from concentrated routes is beyond belief.” She added: “The noise shadow is far grater from a concentrated route than a dispersed route. It’s like having a country lane next to your home, which might see a few cars throughout the day and night, and changing it to the M1 overnight. The noise is relentless. Until the aviation industry recognise that concentrated routes create noise shadows these reports are pointless as they serve only the aviation industry and not the taxpayers.” The report offers little for people affected in West Sussex.
Gatwick required to change westerly departure route
12.11.2015 (Plane Wrong)
Plane Wrong welcomes the decision of the CAA to require Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) to change the westerly departure route that affects people in many villages to the South of Dorking and across to Reigate and Redhill.
We understand that GAL is currently working on a new design that will take the route roughly back to where it used to be before it was moved nearly 2 years ago. However, we are waiting to see whether the new route will continue to be concentrated so that some people are badly affected, as now, or more dispersed as previously. We believe the latter would be much fairer and will be pressing for that.
We are dismayed by the CAA’s conclusion that the easterly departure route does not need to be changed and we reaffirm our commitment to continue to campaign for the change made in 2014 to be reversed.
Chair, Mike Ward, said, “We are naturally pleased that our stance on the westerly route has been entirely vindicated. It was never fair to impose a new route on people who had not previously been affected and with minimal consultation. However, there is a long way to go before the change will be implemented and we will be continuing to monitor both the design and the speed of implementation through regular contact with GAL and the CAA.
“The decision on the easterly route is clearly very disappointing, especially for residents in the south part of Reigate and Redhill and villages further east and the campaign to reverse this will go on. We will be studying the lengthy report and consulting with our professional advisers before reaching further conclusions.”
CAA’s Gatwick review ‘ignored’ human cost of changed flight paths
12.11.2015 (Mid Sussex Times)
A campaign group has said a Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) review on changes to Gatwick flightpaths was ‘extremely disappointing’.
The CAA’s report on the departure routes which it approved in August 2013 concluded a path which takes off to the west and turns north had to be changed; a route towards the south-coast and another heading east were acceptable but should be reviewed by Gatwick; the remaining six routes did not need to change.
Sally Pavey, chairman of Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions (CAGNE), said: “For a Government, in this day and age, to implement and subject residents to such an airspace concentrated system without any research into the noise readings or emissions from concentrated routes is beyond belief.”
She criticised the reports and said they should be reviewed by the aviation minister Robert Goodwill.
She added: “The noise shadow is far grater from a concentrated route than a dispersed route. It’s like having a country lane next to your home, which might see a few cars throughout the day and night, and changing it to the M1 overnight. The noise is relentless.
“Until the aviation industry recognise that concentrated routes create noise shadows these reports are pointless as they serve only the aviation industry and not the taxpayers.”
A CAGNE statement said the report gave ‘no consideration’ to the impact concentrated routes have on residents’ lives.
The report was ‘particularly disappointing’ for the residents of Slinfold and Southwater.
“Copthorne may find the route SEAFORD tweaked to help with the concentration of flights but none of the other routes, that West Sussex are blighted by, are to be improved for residents,” said CAGNE.
“The report expects residents to tolerate a three per cent increase in noise and is done with no compensation or mitigation proposals by Gatwick Airport.
“Dispersal is mentioned in the report but is dismissed without any evidence to the impact that concentration are having on the environment ie people.
“Concentrated flight paths were introduced with very little consultation in May 2014 on all departure routes out of Gatwick. The Government having undertaken no research to the health impacts that they would have on people’s lives nor mental state. These factors have cost implication, which are simply ignored by this CAA report.”
The CAA’s disappointing PIR finally published, showing only one Gatwick route to be slightly changed
Since autumn 2013 there have been changes to flight paths for Gatwick airport, given provisional approval by the CAA. Routes have been altered, and flight paths have been more concentrated. This has been done without consultation of affected communities. The CAA has done a PIR (Post Implementation Review) that ended in January. It has finally, after delays, published its findings. These are regarded as very disappointing, as almost no concessions have been made and though hundreds of complaints were sent in, there are few changes to routes. GACC says: “In a 198 page report they devote only 2 pages to the possibility of dispersal – spreading the aircraft over a wider area – and to the possibility of respite – giving people a break from constant noise. And then reject both. We will now need to take the case to the Government and indeed will raise this when we meet the Minister for Aviation, Robert Goodwill MP …on 18 November.” The more concentrated noise has caused great distress for the people unlucky enough to live directly under the flight paths. The only change to a route is one which takes off to the west, and flies over Holmwood, Brockham and Reigate – Gatwick will be consulting on a revised route in the next few months. People are angry that the CAA, yet again, ignores input from the public.