Inadequate and unsatisfactory replies from Sir Jeremy Sullivan to complaints about the NPS consultation process
Many people have taken part in the DfT’s consultation on the draft Airports National Policy Statement (NPS). The NPS is to provide the policy to support a 3rd Heathrow runway. The DfT appointed Sir Jeremy Sullivan, a retired judge, to oversee the consultation and ensure it was carried out adequately. However, it appears Sir Jeremy is only looking at process, and not at content. Responses by Sir Jeremy to letters to him, complaining about the consultation, have received some unsatisfactory responses – and some of these are copied below. Sir Jeremy is unconcerned that the material in the exhibitions by the DfT was biased, and gave only partial information. His view is that as the government is in favour of the runway, it would be expected that the material would reflect this. To all those who complained to him, he merely advises that all comments and points should be sent to the DfT in consultation responses. In response to many people who complained about the absence of flight path detail, he comments that “In my view it is still possible to have a fair consultation upon the basis of indicative flight paths, provided it is made clear that they are only indicative.” And on selective quotes from backers of Heathrow (no balance with other comments) he says: “In my view using quotes from business leaders and others which are in support of this position is in keeping with the purpose of the [DfT consultation] events.”
.
Tweet
Sir Jeremy Sullivan was appointed, by Chris Grayling, in October 2016 to oversee the draft Airports National Policy Statement consultation.
Chris Grayling: “I have appointed Sir Jeremy Sullivan, the former Senior President of Tribunals, to provide independent oversight of the draft Airports National Policy Statement consultation process and ensure best practice is upheld.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/people/jeremy-sullivan
If you have any comments on the consultation process, please contact Sir Jeremy at independentadviser@runwayconsultation.gsi.gov.uk.
“Sir Jeremy will not comment or respond on any issue relating to government policy on airport expansion, but will consider all comments he receives on the consultation process.”
Response 1:
Dear XXXXXX (name given)
Thank you for your email.
I will respond to each of the points which have raised in turn if I may.
- While I agree that the signposting at the event locations might have been improved, this is the kind of matter which the Department for Transport would need to consider and take into account when running future consultations. However, the Departments records show that a combined total of 560 people attended the events at Maidenhead and Twickenham so people were able to find their way to the events.
- I should make it clear that the ‘policy’ to which you refer is the Government’s policy and not ‘my policy’.
- I note your view that the Departmental representatives at the events were unable to answer some of the questions which they were asked. However, this view was not one which was shared by 72% of those who attended the events and completed a questionnaire form to state the view that they felt that the representatives had been able to adequately answer their questions.
- One of the main purposes of a consultation is to enable consultees to raise points which they contend should/should not have been considered by the decision taker. You should make your concerns about safety in your response to the consultation.
- I respectfully disagree with your view that the consultation is not a genuine consultation under the 2008 Planning Act.
- See my response to 4 above.
- I have noted your comment.
Kind Regards,
Sir Jeremy Sullivan
. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The original complaint said (by email)
Sent: 09 May 2017
To: independentadviser <independentadviser@runwayconsultation.gsi.gov.uk>
Subject: Complaint about so-called ‘consultation’ process.
Dear Sir,
Having managed to attend two of the consultations, no thanks to the direction signs that were not effectively put out, and the lack of proper advertisement of such sessions (it took the local council to do that, when it should have been you doing it), I have serious concerns about its viability as a ‘consultation’.
- The lack of physical signposts. For instance, I went to the Maidenhead consultation. Had I not managed to find out where it was by other means, and known that it was supposed to be there, I would never have found it if left to the signposting. There was one small notice placed in a position where those coming in by car found it almost impossible to see. Even then the signposting then ceased, and we were left to guess where it might be, and found it simply by dint of searching. Without much searching we would never have known it was happening. For something as important as a consultation on government policy it should surely have been made much better known – with clear and frequent signs directing passers-by to the door. This did not happen there, nor in Twickenham, where I also attended – on that occasion I spent 3 hours outside ensuring that people looking for it knew where to go. Such consultations should shout their presence, so even the unknowing passer-by can find them. Not sit in shamed silence, trying to pretend that they aren’t there at all.
- Since your policy is clearly in favour of the expansion of Heathrow, it was clear that members of the public should not have been surprised by what was on offer once they managed to find their way into the consultation – that is, that they can expect to be deceived into believing that expansion at Heathrow is worthwhile. Balanced argument and presentation were simply non-existent.
- The Department for Transport representatives were unable to answer many questions put to them by the public. Although I am sure that you will say that the officials were at the events to explain not debate the Government’s policy. However, they should at least be able to do that effectively – which they could not. One official would know a little (but not much) about ‘their board’, but nothing about another part of the presentation – thus they had no idea that they contradicted each other and the facts in many matters. This is not an effective and helpful consultation.
- NOTHING was presented about the issue of safety. It is a matter of fact that a third runway increases the risk of a air crash by 60% – this is hidden away in your own government documents. Despite this, there was nothing whatsoever presented about one of the three major issues that are related to the expansion of Heathrow (the other two being noise and pollution). NO genuine consultation, which seeks to be fair and open, would have avoided such a topic.
- It was quite clear, having attended, that the DfT Leaflet was incorrect and the word “Consultation” in the phrase “Heathrow North West Runway Consultation” should have been omitted. I doubt you will have any desire to apologise for this, sitting smugly as you are in your overpaid tax-payer funded ivory tower, away from the reality of life under the flight paths, and filled with the largesse of a grateful government and air industry. Indeed, as this clearly isn’t a genuine consultation, you will have in the eyes of your masters and betters, done your job superbly.
- You will no doubt ‘note my view’ that the information provided was incomplete. At the same time you will come up with vast swathes of explanation as to why you cannot present the few bits of information that the pubic really want about this proposed third runway (which, believe me, will not happen). Nothing about safety (as I have said), nothing about increase in pollution, nothing about increase in noise, nothing about where flight paths will be, nothing whatsoever about anything that matters. It is not a consultation without presentation of such matters. You will probably tell me (because no -one will be given the access to the original paperwork and facts in order to have the ability to question it) that a large number of respondents thought it was all very good, and thank you sir (tugging their forelocks as they wrote it no doubt). You’ll go for about two thirds being so grateful. But frankly, having spent considerable time at and outside two of the consultations, the vast majority of those coming out were happy to talk to those of us who oppose the runway, and were utterly unimpressed by your alleged consultation. our knowledge challenges your fake news.
- I can sum up your view with ease: “My view is that while I understand a consultee’s wish to know whether he or she is going to be exterminated, it seems to me that we have a ‘chicken and egg’ situation; details of the decision to exterminate you cannot be made unless the decision to exterminate you has been taken.”
From [write is involved with various and numerable charities, all of which will be negatively and adversely affected by this proposed runway.]
.
Response 2:
From: [ independentadviser@runwayconsultation.gsi.gov.uk ]
Sent: 09 March 2017 16:32
Subject: To Sir Jeremy Sullivan: re Heathrow Third Runway and National Policy Statement Consultation
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your email to Sir Jeremy Sullivan. I can confirm that he has seen your email and asked that I respond to this with the below;
May I firstly apologise for not responding to your email sooner. I had initially asked that the Department respond to your concerns but this does not appear to have happened and I apologise for this.
The purpose of the consultation events is to explain the Government’s policies relating to its preference for a new runway at Heathrow airport and the reasons for these. The boards which have been used at the events take extracts directly from the draft National Policy Statement in order to help inform attendees about this.
On the issue of flight paths which you have raised, my view is that while I understand your wish to have detailed information on flight paths, it seems to me that we have a ‘chicken and egg’ situation; a decision on detailed flight paths will not be made by the Civil Aviation Authority until it has been decided (a) whether there should be an additional runway in the south east and (b) if so, whether this should be a new runway at Heathrow
Once the planning position is clarified it will be possible to determine detailed flight paths in accordance with whatever process that may be adopted following the Government’s Airspace Consultation.
In my view it is still possible to have a fair consultation upon the basis of indicative flight paths, provided it is made clear that they are only indicative. I also note your criticisms of the Appraisal of Sustainability. These points can be made as part of your response to the consultation.
Once again my apologies for the delay in responding to you.
Kind Regards,
Craig (on behalf of Sir Jeremy Sullivan)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The original complaint said (by email)
From: XXXXXXX (name given – in Teddington)
Sent: 20 February 2017
To: independentadviser@runwayconsultation.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: To Sir Jeremy Sullivan: re Heathrow Third Runway and National Policy Statement Consultation
Dear Sir Jeremy,
I have got your email address from the Government web site. The consultation event in my area for Heathrow expansion is this coming Thursday the 23rd February. I have been presented with a leaflet which seems to contain an extraordinarily small amount of information and most importantly no information whatsoever on where the flight paths for all these extra planes are going to be. I do not see how I am going to be in a position to ask pertinent questions or properly participate in the Consultation if we have no details of where these planes are going to go or how often they are going to go there.
I would be most grateful therefore if you could arrange for a copy of the maps of the proposed new flight routes to be emailed to me prior to the Consultation evening on Thursday.
Thank you in advance for your assistance
Yours sincerely
XXXXXX
Their next email, as no response was received:
From: XXXXXXX
Sent: 04 March 2017 10:14
To: independentadviser <independentadviser@runwayconsultation.gsi.gov.uk>
Subject: To Sir Jeremy Sullivan: re Heathrow Third Runway and National Policy Statement Consultation
.
Dear Sir Jeremy,
I was disappointed not to receive even an automated derisory grunt in response to my email to you below. I duly attended, along with my friends and other local residents, the Consultation Event on the 23rd February. Predictably it was a farce. No one knew anything of substance and what people did know was presented as blatantly misleading. It could have been a pass-by roadshow for a new formula of washing powder. Indeed many of us wondered if Heathrow had written the leaflet which was so misleading and manifestly false. For example not even the Government thinks that there will be £61 billion of economic benefits. Upon the Government’s own figures the net benefit after costs will be up to £6.1 billion (yes one tenth of the figure given) spread over 60 years and even that does not take into account any detraction from the Regions by the expansion of Heathrow.
No one had any response to the question of how are we not going to be poisoned by emissions taking into account the two court orders that the Government have yet to comply with (ordering them to comply with EU Reg 2008/50). No one could give me any assurance that the Court orders would or could be complied with
No one had a response to my question of how Heathrow could afford all this and had anyone even looked at Heathrow’s filed accounts at Companies House to check if Heathrow could afford it (I have and I cannot see how this can be afforded without the taxpayer funding most of it).
I questioned the person attending to the noise maps and asked her if the DfT were including non-noise events in their calculations. She said they were. I said that the DfT should not do this and she said that the maps were only models and nothing more. That was clearly untrue since the Commission used these maps and the DfT have based their NPS health assessment on them.
No one had the answer to the question that I posed to you (where are the flight paths going).
The NPS is supposed as a matter of law to have a proper consultation. As a matter of law it is supposed to have a proper sustainability assessment in support. I complain that it has neither. I also complain to you that you have failed to respond to me and provide or procure that I am provided with the information requested.
If you are not considering the government’s plans for raising awareness of the consultation and for stakeholder and public engagement during this period, or challenging these where necessary or monitoring the delivery of the consultation then please accept my apologies for troubling you.
Yours sincerely
XXXXXXXX
Their next email, as the response from “Craig” was unsatisfactory:
From: XXXXXXX
Date: 10 May 2017
Subject: To Sir Jeremy Sullivan: re Heathrow Third Runway and National Policy Statement Consultation
To: independentadviser@runwayconsultation.gsi.gov.uk
.
Dear Sir Jeremy,
I have not come back to you following your email of the 9th March below. I had decided that there was no point in engaging with you following such an obviously biased reply and one so far removed from your stated role. My decision was a mistake and I am rectifying this by complaining to you about how you have handled my complaint, which I claim is not at all in accordance with your stated role.
Your stated role as published on the Government’s website is to:
“consider the government’s plans for raising awareness of the consultation and for stakeholder and public engagement during this period, challenging these where necessary; monitor the delivery of the consultation and make recommendations for improvements to the Secretary of State for Transport; produce a report to the Secretary of State for Transport on the government’s approach to and delivery of the consultation”.
Firstly; you have not replied to me at all. I have only had correspondence from someone called “Craig”. I do not know if “Craig” is a human or whether he, she or it is an automated response vehicle in your Office. From my recollection, complaints to Heathrow about noise and excessively low flying planes have sometimes been answered by a “Craig”. Is Heathrow’s “Craig” the same as your “Craig”? As a practising lawyer involved in dispute resolution for many years I cannot imagine what the response of my opponents or a Judge would have been if I had addressed any of them by saying that my name “is Neil”. I suspect that I might have been told to stop being so rude, arrogant and presumptuous and to start treating people with respect.
Secondly; the presentation of information by the Government to members of the public is entirely a matter of procedure. One may be pro or anti expansion of Heathrow but we are entitled to be told the truth. You, as the independent adviser, are charged with monitoring this. It is not a free lunch for you with extra claret. Do you seriously think that there would not be any difference in responses if people had been told the truth about the noise contours? Do you seriously think that people would not have been influenced one way or the other if they had been told whether the proposed new flight paths were over their heads or not?
Thirdly; do you not think that we should not have been told that the £61 billion “economic benefit” was truly £0.2 billion carbon capped net economic benefit over 60 years on the Government’s own figures?
Fourthly; what about the £700 million for noise insulation being only about one tenth of that required?
Fifthly; do you seriously think that the omission of any reference to NOx and Sulphur emissions, bearing in mind that the Government was in breach of a High Court order and a Supreme Court order at the time the consultation document was produced, was acceptable?
Sixthly; do you not think that the Government might have stated that the 6 hour 30 minute “ban” might have made clearer that it would not be delivered because it was only for scheduling?
Even someone in favour of expansion could have said that the emissions targets are unlikely to be met but we endorse expansion of Heathrow because of: 1, 2 and 3. Do you not think that the Government could have said that the net economic benefit of expanding Heathrow is £0.18 per year over a 60 year period per man woman and child but we still support expansion because of; 1, 2 and 3?
To re-cap my complaints about your conduct are:
- You failed to deal with my complaint and instead appointed an unidentifiable body called “Craig”
- You failed to answer my allegation that we had not been told the truth by the Government
- You failed to address the fact that the figure of £61 billion was manifestly false and was in fact £0.2 billion over 60 years
- You failed to answer my allegation that £700 million for noise insulation was a gross under-statement of what is required
- You failed to answer my allegation that the Government failed to mention anything about emissions and expansion of Heathrow notwithstanding that the Government was in breach of two court orders.
- You failed to answer my allegation that the statement that there would be a scheduled flight ban of 6 hours 30 minutes per might may not be met because of over-running of flights.
You will appreciate that while you might say that these matters could be raised in the response to the Consultation (which incidentally I have already done), they could not be so raised if people did not know of them in the first place because they had believed what was in the Consultation Leaflet. If people do not have an intimate knowledge of these facts then they will not spot the deception and as a consequence not put these matters in their response. These are matters of procedure and are nothing to do with chicken and eggs and which of the two might have come first.
Yours sincerely
XXXXXXX
No response has yet been received from Sir Jeremy Sullivan.
Response 3:
Response from Sir Jeremy Sullivan – “independent advisor” to Friends of the Earth, West London.
.
May I firstly apologise for the slight delay in responding to you. Upon receipt of your email I asked the Department if it would provide me with some background information about the quotes which were used on the information boards at the local consultation events.
The Department has confirmed to me that the quote which was used which came directly from David Lean from London First was used to highlight the benefits and provide support for the Government’s preference for a new runway at Heathrow. The origin of the quote dates back to before the commencement of the Government’s consultation on the draft NPS and the Department have confirmed that it sought the permission of Mr Lean before using his quote on its display materials. Quotes from a range of other sources, including for example the TUC, were used on the boards at the events.
The purpose of the local consultation events and the information which was provided at these was to enable the Government to set out the proposals for a new runway at Heathrow airport and the reasons for its preference for this airport expansion scheme. In my view using quotes from business leaders and others which are in support of this position is in keeping with the purpose of the events.
You are of course free to disagree with the views which have been expressed by the Government (and others) in its consultation and the quotes which appeared on the exhibition boards.
I would advise that you make such points when providing your response to the consultation.
.
The original email sent by West London Friends of the Earth to “independent advisor” – Sir Jeremy Sullivan.
.
I attended the DfT NPS ‘consultation information event’ at Southall on 13th February. I understand that the same displays were shown at the other events.
I was extremely concerned at the bias shown in the material. A blatant example was quotes from David Lean of London First.
London First has been a long-standing supporter of Heathrow expansion. Having their comments in what ought to be a balanced and impartial consultation is therefore wrong. If DfT are going to quote from supporters of Heathrow expansion, quotes should also be given from opponents of expansion in order to give balance.
One of David Lean’s quotes was that there are “important safeguards on noise”. David Lean and London First are not authorities on aircraft noise. If comments are to be made about noise, they should be from someone qualified to so do. To give a quote from an unqualified supporter of Heathrow expansion is a further illustration of bias in the consultation.
West London FOE’s conclusions
In Sullivan’s view it is ok to give quotes supporting expansion from people who support expansion. But not giving counterbalancing comments from those who oppose. So he – a retired judge – sees nothing wrong with a government giving systematically biased information and presentations to its citizens in order to promote a scheme.
Sullivan ignores the point that David Lean of London First has no qualifications to speak about noise. We conclude that he – a retired judge – thinks it’s ok for the government to give sound bites from uninformed and biased supporters of Runway 3. Instead of quotes from qualified and independent experts.
Response 4:
From: independentadviser <independentadviser@runwayconsultation.gsi.gov.uk>
Date: 19 May 2017
To: XXXXXXX
Subject: RE: Comments on the NPS consultation process
Dear Madam,
Thank you for your email to Sir Jeremy Sullivan. He has asked that I respond with the below message;
It seems to me that the Health Impact Assessment makes the Government’s position clear; a full HIA has not been carried out and there has been no targeted stakeholder consultation.
Whether the Government’s reasons for adopting this course of action are/are not adequate is a matter of judgement. Your view clearly differs from that of the Government and should be made in a response to the consultation.
I note your view that failure to mention certain health impacts is a major flaw in the consultation process, which leaves the Government at risk of judicial review. My role dos not include giving the Department any legal advice. I would merely observe that one of the purposes of any consultation is to enable consultees to identify points which they contend have not been adequately considered by the decision taker.
Kind Regards,
Craig (on behalf of Sir Jeremy Sullivan)
———————–
The original complaint said (by email)
From: XXXXXX
Sent: 16 May 2017
To: independentadviser <independentadviser@runwayconsultation.gsi.gov.uk>
Subject: Comments on the NPS consultation process
.
Dear Sir Jeremy,
I understand that we are to write to you if we have concerns regarding the current NPS consultation process.
Firstly, I would like to say that I am very familiar with the Cabinet Office Consultation Principles. I have also worked for the past eighteen years in both central government and the health service so I am very familiar with how public consultations are undertaken in relation to health issues.
My concerns relate principally to the Health Impact Assessment, published as part of the NPS consultation. I trust that you are familiar with this document. I believe that there are major shortcomings with the current NPS consultation process on the grounds that
1) a full health assessment has not been carried out; and
2) the DfT has failed to highlight or give sufficient weight to significant adverse impacts on health which are of great public interest or to properly engage or consult with those people likely to be most affected.
A full health assessment has not been carried out
The HIA Executive Summary acknowledges that a full Health Impact Assessment has not been carried out because “of the lack of available detail about the proposals’. The suite of NPS consultation documents inclusive of Annexes runs to thousands of pages so it is incredible that the DfT has failed to undertake crucial work on the potential impact on public health and wholly irresponsible to consult the public without providing them with this information. A further explanation for the reasons behind this decision is given at paragraph 2.4.1 but this is written in such an opaque manner that it can only appear to be seeking to mask the true reasons and mislead the public.
The DfT has failed to highlight or give sufficient weight to significant adverse impacts on health which are of great public interest or to properly engage and consult with those people likely to be most affected,
The document goes on to identify a number of serious health impacts associated with airport expansion which include an increased risk of stroke, cardiovascular disease, respiratory, mental health issues as well as learning delays in children. There has thankfully, been some attempt to properly assess some of the impacts of a third runway, with the statement at paragraph 5.7.47 states that ‘There are 47,063 properties where annual mean NO2 concentrations within the Principal Study Area are predicted to be higher, with 121,377 people affected’.
However, paragraph 1.1.8 of the document states that ‘Due to the confidential nature of elements of this study, no targeted stakeholder consultation has taken place at this stage’. So this is a clear admission that despite the DfT knowing the people and properties that will experience an increase in air pollutants as a result of a third runway – and as a consequence a higher risk if developing any number of serious illnesses – it has failed to directly engage of consult with those people. Equally, there is no explicit mention of these likely impacts within the main NPS consultation documents – only general and vague statements about mitigation. I would say that this is a major flaw in the consultation process and one which leaves the Government at risk of judicial review.
I look forward to your response on these issues.
Yours sincerely,
XXXXXXX
[Her comment on the inadequate response from “Craig”: completely useless response from the ‘independent’ advisor, which fails to address the issues raised. So defensive too! ]
.
Response 5:
From: independentadviser [mailto:independentadviser@runwayconsultation.gsi.gov.uk]
Sent: 08 May 2017
Subject: RE: DfT NPS consultation – complaint
To a complainant living in an area badly affected by Heathrow noise
.
Dear Madam,
Thank you for your email to Sir Jeremy Sullivan. He has seen this and asked that I respond with the below;
Thank you for your email. I note your view that the draft NPS consultation is in breach of Cabinet Office guidelines but I respectfully disagree with this.
Your criticisms appear to relate to the local consultation events, which were only one aspect of the consultation. The full explanation of the Government’s policies and the reasons for them is contained within the draft NPS and associated documents, including the Appraisal of Sustainability. The exhibits at the local events were, of necessity limited and sought to explain the Government’s policy on airport expansion.
Since that policy is in favour of the expansion of Heathrow the exhibits were likely to be regarded as being ‘Pro Heathrow’ by those consultees who are opposed to the expansion of Heathrow.
I note your view that the Department for Transport representatives were unable to answer many questions put to them by the public. The officials were at the events to explain not debate the Government’s policy. Incidentally, the Department collected feedback forms from members of the public who had attended the events and 72% of those who completed the form felt that the officials had been able to respond to their questions effectively.
While it is correct that verbal comments made at the consultation events will not be recorded as responses to the consultation, it is not correct to say that consultees have to complete the online responses forms in order to respond to the consultation. Consultees can respond to the consultation in a number of ways – by email, by post or via the online facilities.
I note your view that the information provided about flight paths was incomplete. My view is that while I understand a consultees wish to have detailed information on flight paths, it seems to me that we have a ‘chicken and egg’ situation; a decision on detailed flight paths will not be made by the Civil Aviation Authority until it has been decided (a) whether there should be an additional runway in the south east and (b) if so, whether this should be a new runway at Heathrow.
Once the planning position is clarified it will be possible to determine detailed flight paths in accordance with whatever process that may be adopted following the Government’s Airspace Consultation.
In my view it is still possible to have a fair and meaningful consultation upon the basis of indicative flight paths, provided it is made clear that they are only indicative.
Kind Regards,
Craig (on behalf of Sir Jeremy Sullivan)
.
The original complaint said (by email)
From: XXXXXX
Sent: 04 May 2017
To: independentadviser <independentadviser@runwayconsultation.gsi.gov.uk>
Subject: DfT NPS consultation – complaint
.
Dear Sir Jeremy
I am writing to register complaint concerning the way in which the public have been consulted on the SE airport runway consultation. I attended the initial launch meeting between yourself and community groups at the start of this process.
The cabinet office has issued clear guidance (2016) regarding how government consultations should be conducted. In my opinion the current consultation is in breach of this on a number of grounds in relation to the process that has been followed.
Consultations failures of process
The consultation fails on this ground on the basis the process for communicating the information to communities was well thought out. In fact it was as if the whole process was designed to ensure that people didn’t receive much real factual data because ambiguity obfuscated the flaws in the consultation. The information presented was
- Not balanced as the information clearly favoured Heathrow expansion rather than presenting both sides of the argument
- Misleading, especially in relation to the noise analysis because areas such as Teddington that are seriously affected by noise impacts were excluded from the maps
- Inadequate as the DfT representatives were unable to answer many of my questions and told me that the ONLY responses factored into the final report and decision would be those returned via the DfT lengthy and very detailed paper reply forms. So what was the point of all this expense for an event that was NOT a consultation but merely a PR exercise for Heathrow?
- Incomplete because they didn’t show the flight paths from an expanded airport so how were we supposed to consult on them!!!
I would appreciate your consideration of the points raised in this email and send me your response as to how the outcome of such a flawed consultation process can be amended to give equal weight to residents (versus Heathrow) input.
Yours sincerely,
XXXXXXXX
.
To this, the person complaining sent a further email:
From: XXXXXXX
Sent: 09 May 2017 07:47
To: independentadviser <independentadviser@runwayconsultation.gsi.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: DfT NPS consultation – complaint
Dearest naïve Craig,
Hate to upset your day, but some “madams” actually have brain cells and mine have been honed for 25 years at executive board level running global companies in the ultra-competitive technology market sector – rather than what appears to be a very lax public sector where people clock into government jobs with the hope of getting a cushy job with the industries they protect from abusing the public. Is it totally sickening to see how many government officials are shuffling between government committees and Heathrow.
Since your policy is in favour of the expansion of Heathrow, members of the public should have expected to be deceived into believing that expansion at Heathrow is worthwhile and the Department for Transport representatives should have been able to answer questions put to them by the public. Why waste MY taxpayer money to have “consultations” where the public view is irrelevant and where the officials were at the events to explain not debate the Government’s policy. The DfT Leaflet was incorrect and the word “Consultation” in the phrase “Heathrow North West Runway Consultation” should have been omitted.
Hundreds of thousands of people suffer from the noise today from just two runways. Imagine if there are 270,000 more planes. Spending a day with some of them would wipe the smug smile off your face while sending me such a glib, nonsensical reply. There is data commissioned by Heathrow (obviously a slip on their part) that PROVES planes can safely take off at a minimum 15% degree climb rate that would significantly reduce noise and pollution. However, climbing at that gradient might cost airlines a bit more and so Heathrow and UK government don’t require it (unlike other airports around the world) because then the 92% foreign owners of Heathrow couldn’t charge as much for landing fees.
Want the real facts? Just let me know and I will send you better information than the DfT is willing to admit exists.
Disgustedly yours,
XXXXXXXX
.
To which this response was sent:
Subject RE: DfT NPS consultation – complaint
From independentadviser
To: XXXXXX
Date: ? 10th May 2017
Dear XXXXXXX
Thank you for your further email.
I do not think that I can usefully add anything further to my earlier reply.
Since you are clearly opposed to expansion at Heathrow, I would urge you to make the points which you have raised with me in your response to the consultation.
Kind Regards,
Sir Jeremy Sullivan
.
Sir Jeremy Sullivan took a different line on inadequate information back in 2007
The person complaining points out that this was Sir Jeremy’s contradictory view in a previous case: http://saveallypally.com/pressreleases.html This was a case about Alexandra Palace, in 2007, over which he presided.
This says:
“Mr Justice Jeremy Sullivan opened the hearing saying “I am driven to the point of incredulity when I consider how a private agreement reached between the commission and trustees could negate a consultation exercise publicly promised by a minister in Parliament.”
He pointed out that “one can not consult the public on X and when the public ask what X is, you tell them: sorry, I can’t tell you what X is or give any information on it.” He went on to say “The order may be the best thing since sliced bread, or maybe the worst, there was no way of knowing.” He called the consultation process “nonsense”, and said “I can not understand why alarm bells were not ringing deafeningly loud as to fairness.” ”
http://saveallypally.com/pressreleases.html
.
.
Sir Jeremy Sullivan, given task of overseeing NPS consultation, rejected ban on Heathrow night flights in 2008
The DfT has set up a retired High Court judge to oversee the process of the consultation into the draft Airports National Policy Statement. His brief is to look at the process, and he is not interested in the content of the consultation. Sir Jeremy is reputed to have been a good and popular judge. However it is interesting that he presided over an appeal for a reduction in the number of night flights at Heathrow, in 2008. Richmond, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead councils had taken the DfT to a judicial review at the Royal Courts of Justice, to seek a reduction in the number of aircraft allowed to arrive at Heathrow before 6am. But Sir Jeremy Sullivan ruled in favour of the Government, rejecting the review on all grounds. Mr Sullivan said that while the Government had a policy of bearing down on night noise this did not necessarily mean that it had to make things better. He added that the policy was, therefore, “vacuous.” The councils argued half the planes in this early morning period had been placed in the wrong noise category and if they had been correctly classified they would not have been able to fly. The judge agreed with the DfT that the government did not have to take specific action on the Heathrow problem, as the night flights scheme pooled noise data over the 3 London airports, Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
Click here to view full story…
.
.
.
.
.
.
..