“Plane Justice” legal claim forces CAA to concede Route 4 decision was wrong on all grounds

The small local group at Gatwick, Plane Justice, has legal battle on the location of Route, Route 4. The CAA has conceded Plane Justice’s judicial review claim on all grounds. Its April 2017 decision to make the current Gatwick departure Route 4 permanent will be quashed by the High Court, following the signing of a consent order by the parties.  The CAA was due to be in Court on 20th February for a full 2 day hearing, but having not come up with any detailed grounds of defence to the Plane Justice claim, they have admitted their decision was wrong and conceded on all the grounds of claim. The CAA agreed they had been wrong in ignoring existing patterns of traffic and the value of leaving the Route in its 2012 location, and they had been wrong in not requiring Gatwick to consult on the design of the Route that was introduced in May 2016.  They also concede they were also wrong in saying that magnetic drift was a sufficient reason to move the Route.  The location of Route 4 has been highly contentious for over 3 years, as it now gets concentrated rather than filling the width of the NPR swathe, as it did before the advent of PrNav for aircraft. This has meant either one community, or another, in an area of several miles width, suffer much worse plane noise. Another group, Plane Wrong, earlier argued for the route to be moved away from them.
.

CAA concede Route 4 decision was wrong on all grounds

19.1.2018  (Plane Justice press release)

CAA must take its decision again, giving proper consideration to maintaining 2012 flight pattern

In a dramatic turn of events, the Civil Aviation Authority has conceded Plane Justice’s judicial review claim on all grounds, and its April 2017 decision making the current Gatwick departure Route 4 permanent will be quashed by the High Court following the signing of a consent order by the parties.

The CAA was due to be in Court on 20th February for a full 2 day hearing, but having not come up with any detailed grounds of defence to our claim, they have now admitted their decision was wrong and conceded on all the grounds of claim.

The CAA have conceded in the consent order:

  • that they were WRONG to ignore existing patterns of traffic and the value of leaving the Route in its 2012 location,
  • WRONG because they failed to require that Gatwick consult on the design of the Route that was introduced in May 2016,
  • they concede they were also WRONG in saying that magnetic drift was a sufficient reason to move the Route, as their quashed decision had asserted.

The CAA have been duly called to account, and the CAA and Gatwick are flying a Route based on a decision that has now been pronounced unlawful.

Plane Justice Acting Chairman Chris Quinlan said:

“Residents have now had confirmed what they always knew – that they’ve been victims of a wrong and now discredited decision, and one not even made with due consultation.

It is now up to the CAA and Gatwick to begin the process of redesigning Route 4. There will need to be a new satellite-based design taking due account of the above findings recorded in the Order, including giving full effect to the value of maintaining the 2012 flight pattern.   

Trust of the decision makers has taken a battering, after logic, ethics, dialogue, campaigning and complaints failed to move them earlier, leaving legal action as the reluctant last resort.

This must mark the day the decision makers start to do the right thing by these residents – beginning with honouring the undertaking the CAA made to GATCOM in 2013, and taking the purely interim measure of returning Route 4 in the shortest practical time to the conventional navigation Route that pre-dated the CAA’s unlawful 7th April decision; 

The intended effect of this would be to return the Route on a conventional navigation basis to its pre-2013 position, pending implementation of a new satellite-based route design.

This is exactly the situation the CAA itself envisaged should happen, in its 2015 ‘Post implementation Review’, if the RNAV version of Route 4 failed to achieve its original stated aim. This will give hard-pressed communities the breathing space they deserve, while Gatwick and the CAA meanwhile set in motion the necessary procedures and consultation on a new satellite-based design for Route 4 which honours the terms of the Order conceding our claim.

These long-suffering communities cannot be expected to endure yet another summer with Gatwick flying a Route derived from an unlawful decision.”

Meanwhile Plane Justice has put the CAA on notice that it reserves its rights to challenge any further decision they may take that does not give full effect to the value of maintaining the 2012 flight pattern. 

– ends   –

For further information, please contact Plane Justice:

email@planejustice.org   www.planejustice.org   07870 637674

 

 

Notes to editors

  • Route 4 is a departure route from Gatwick Airport. The Route was altered in May 2016 and currently overflies (or in some cases vectors over) new populations to the North of the airport in Newdigate, Capel, Leigh, Norwood Hill, Sidlow, Salfords, Outwood and Horley.
  • Judicial review (JR) is where a Court reviews a decision made by a governmental or public/regulatory body, in this case the CAA, and decides whether it has been made correctly and lawfully.
  • The consent order signed by the parties agrees that the CAA’s 7th April 2017 decision should be nullified, both with respect to the current RNAV Route 4, and with respect to the correction for magnetic drift to the historical conventional navigation route that the CAA ordered Gatwick to make. This will now be sealed by the Court.
  • Conventional navigation routes use ground based beacons rather than sat-nav for navigation and are still available for use at Gatwick. Many airports like Heathrow currently navigate aircraft using conventional navigation almost exclusively.   
  • http://www.planejustice.org/           

 


See earlier:

 

Plane Justice Ltd -v- CAA: Gatwick Route 4 Court Case passes its first big test

In the High Court Mrs Justice Lang DBE granted permission for Plane Justice’s Judicial Review case against the Civil Aviation Authority to proceed to a full trial hearing on all grounds.In granting permission, Mrs Justice Lang said Plane Justice’s grounds of claim merited full consideration.  Gaining permission to proceed is a vital first step that all JR cases have to go through, and only a minority of JR cases achieve it.  Plane Justice is trying to get changes to Gatwick\s Route 4 departure route, which was altered in May 2016 and now overflies (or in some cases vectors over) new populations to the north of the airport in Newdigate, Capel, Leigh, Norwood Hill, Sidlow, Salfords, Outwood and Horley. The route was changed to avoid overflying other areas, and a different group, Plane Wrong, fought hard to get the route change that badly affected them in 2013 altered. Plane Justice wants the route to revert to how it was before 2013. The case is now likely to be listed for a full hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London in the new year.  Salfords & Sidlow Parish Council, affected by Route 4, has made a substantial donation towards the legal costs, and Plane Justice has to date raised 82% of its budget to fund the High Court action.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2017/09/plane-justice-ltd-v-caa-gatwick-route-4-court-case-passes-its-first-big-test/

.

.

See earlier:

CAA confirm Route 4 changes to be permanent – local group calls it the “Route to Misery”

Early in April the CAA approved the current P-RNAV design of Gatwick’s Route 4 (the take off route towards the west, that turns north and heads east). This was altered in 2016 in response to the complaints about the way it has recently been altered. Now, dismissing the outpouring of complaints to the current route “as expected”, the CAA says the route will continue.  The CAA has concluded that modified Route 4 “has delivered the aim of the airspace change to an acceptable standard and this change will now be made permanent.”  They recognise that this has an impact on communities and has asked Gatwick to “investigate the potential of meaningful respite” by “alternating or switching a proportion of Route 4 departures onto another route.” Local group, Plane Justice, deeply opposed to the current Route 4, comments that the CAA appears indifferent to the misery of the people who wrote in complaining about the route. They are angry that the complaints are considered just “AS EXPECTED” rather than real expressions of genuine concern and annoyance. The group has a Route 4 Legacy Pledge, which calls on the CAA to revisit its decision and return Route 4 to the geographical position and dispersion pattern it occupied before 2013 (the ‘legacy Route’). They are asking people to sign up to this.    

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2017/04/caa-confirm-route-4-changes-to-be-permanent-local-group-calls-it-the-route-to-misery/

.


6 month trial of change to Gatwick Route 4 ends, with widespread criticism and opposition

Route 4 from Gatwick (taking off towards the west, curving north and then going east) was changed in 2013 to fly slightly further to the north. This caused huge upset and opposition from those newly, and intensely, overflown. Finally in May 2016, the route was changed to be further south, but instead of relatively spread out across the NPR, it is concentrated. This has caused further upset and opposition from those now finding they have far worse noise than before.  This changed route was “amended” (not a trial, technically) for 6 months, and that ended on 26th November.  However, the altered route will continue for another 3 months, while the CAA evaluates their feedback on how the route has performed. The CAA will in due course produce their PIR (Post Implementation Review) of the changed route. Gatwick had more than 15,000 complaints from the public during the consultation. Some of the  towns and villages badly affected by high levels of plane noise include Leigh, Salfords, and Horley. The route involves a very tight turn, and to stay within the 3km wide NPR, planes should not be accelerating too fast (to avoid swinging out too far, and being outside the NPR). People say planes are making more noise, as pilots use flaps in order to make the tight turn, and planes are lower than they need to be.  An affected resident said “The planes should be flying a shallower turn with a slightly more northerly trajectory afterwards – just as they did with no significant problems for over 20 years up to 2012.”  

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/12/6-month-trial-of-change-to-gatwick-route-4-ends-with-widespread-criticism-and-opposition/

.


See earlier:

Gatwick Route 4 finally re-routed as local MP warns about noise misery dangers of a 2nd runway

On 26th May, the amended Gatwick departure flight path named “Route 4”, taking off towards the west from Gatwick, went in to operation. This route turning north and then east – to fly towards the east. With the implementation of precision-area navigation (PR-NAV) at Gatwick in 2014, changes were made to Route 4 which made it more concentrated, and slightly to the north of the main NPR (Noise Preferential Route). This resulted in thousands of people suffering intense and frequent plane noise, for the first time.  The local group, Plane Wrong, was formed to fight the changes. The PIR (Post Implementation Review) by the CAA in 2015 showed that the change to Route 4 was not “compliant” with regulations, and it should revert to how it was before early 2014.  However, it has taken a long time for this reversion to actually happen. The route that has now started means the SID (Standard Instrument Departure) turning circle is a little tighter so planes avoid the densely populated urban areas of Reigate and Redhill. It is regrettable that it took so long for an unacceptable flight path, that could be introduced so quickly without warning, could take so long to reverse. Local MP Crispin Blunt warned that the noise situation with a 2nd Gatwick runway would be completely unacceptable, with no noise mitigation measures in prospect.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/05/gatwick-route-4-finally-re-routed-as-local-mp-warns-about-noise-misery-dangers-of-a-2nd-runway/

.


“Plane Wrong” critical of CAA’s PIR decision to permit new easterly take-off route to continue

The CAA published its long-awaited Post Implementation Review report in early November. Gatwick is required by the CAA to change one westerly departure route (Route 4) that affects people in many villages to the South of Dorking and across to Reigate and Redhill. This has to revert back to being within the NPR (noise preferential route) as before. Local group, Plane Wrong, set up in response to the noise problems caused, says it welcomes the decision and wants this to be implemented rapidly so that residents do not have to suffer the noise for another summer. Plane Wrong is, however, dismayed at the CAA decision in respect of Route 3, which is not to be changed despite the fact that many more people are significantly affected by the change. This appears to have been entirely ignored. Plane Wrong has considerable doubts about some of the methodologies employed by the CAA to reach both these decisions. On the change to Route 4, Plane Wrong says the changes should be completed quickly, though the CAA has to test the change in simulators for Boeing and Airbus. They do not yet know when this work will take place. There is also a 2 month period that has to elapse after that, and there is no indication yet of when this will end.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/12/plane-wrong-critical-of-caas-pir-decision-to-permit-new-easterly-take-off-route-to-continue/

.

.

.

 

 

.

 

Read more »

Government ignoring its own policy on Heathrow noise assessment

Having seen email correspondence between the DfT and the CAA, the No 3rd Runway Coalition says the Government’s Airports National Policy Statement (NPS) ignores its own policy on measuring noise, and CAA advice on how to assess the number of people impacted. The Coalition has called for a pause in the process of considering the Government’s Airports NPS, to ensure that the full noise impacts of the proposed expansion of Heathrow are properly evaluated. Although it is not possible to assess the negative consequences of a third runway without clear information as to the design of the accompanying flight paths, no such information has been presented in the DfT’s documents.  (i.e. no indication as to which areas will be increasingly overflown, and which new communities will be adversely impacted by aircraft noise for the very first time). The DfT has confirmed that a full range of flight path scenarios must be considered at some stage; yet has opted not to reveal these before MPs are asked to vote on the NPS. The likely 51dBA LAeq contour and noise events at over the N>65dBLAmax contour have not been applied in respect of Heathrow’s noise footprint in the NPS, though the number of people likely to be affected is probably immense. The DfT is not applying its own policy, which is obfuscating the full impact of Heathrow expansion. 

.

GOVERNMENT IGNORING ITS OWN POLICY ON AIRCRAFT NOISE

13.1.2017  (No 3rd Runway Coalition press release)

  • The Government’s Airports National Policy Statement Ignores Its Own Policy On Measuring Noise and CAA Advice On How To Assess The Number Of People Impacted

The No Third Runway Coalition (1) today called for a pause in the process of considering the Government’s Airports National Policy Statement (NPS), to ensure that the full noise impacts of the proposed expansion of Heathrow are properly evaluated.

Although it is not possible to assess the negative consequences of a third runway without clear information as to the design of the accompanying flight paths, no such information has been presented in the Department for Transport’s documents.  (i.e. no indication as to which areas will be increasingly overflown, and which new communities will be adversely impacted by aircraft noise for the very first time),

Freedom of Information requests obtained by the Teddington Action Group – a resident-led group who are members of the No 3rd Runway Coalition – have now revealed that the impact of flight paths is regarded as a risk area by the CAA, and that the flight path principles considered by the Airports Commission (and now included in the DfT’s NPS) are no longer supported by the wider aviation industry (2).

The revised NPS assumes only one flight path principle (known as “Minimise Total” (2)), which relies on the maximum concentration of flight paths, thereby mathematically minimising the number of people who can be assumed to be adversely impacted (3). With overflown communities unlikely to accept the adoption of this flight path principle (which – when adopted in other countries – has resulted in legal action and widespread community protests) (4), its presentation – at this stage – can only mislead decision makers as to the actual numbers who are likely to be adversely impacted.

Notably, the DfT has confirmed that a full range of flight path scenarios must be considered at some stage; yet has opted not to reveal these before parliamentarians are asked to vote on the NPS (5).

Furthermore, and despite adopting a policy of supplementary measures to assess noise impacts, in respect of airspace changes – including lower average noise thresholds of 51db (51dBA LAeq) and the assessment of individual noise events at over 65db the (N>65dBLAmax) (6) – they have not been applied in respect of Heathrow’s noise footprint in the NPS. Through this failure to apply its own policy, to what is likely to be the most significant aviation airspace change in the UK’s history, there can only be one consequence: the obfuscation of the full impact of Heathrow expansion. 

Paul McGuinness, Chair of the No 3rd Runway Coalition said: 

“It is now clear not just that the government has masked the true number of people who will be adversely impacted by an expanded Heathrow, but that they’ve ignored industry advice, and even failed to apply their own noise measuring policy, to pull it off”.

“This is a story of inappropriate and incomplete metrics, the abject failure to provide flight path details, and unrealistic assumptions – all to significantly downplay noise impacts, before parliament is asked to commit itself on the matter. This is simply not good enough. The NPS process should be paused until proper information is available, so that parliamentarians can at least make a judgement based on all of the facts.”

ENDS.

Notes (if pictures of emails are not showing under notes 2, 5 and 6, please get in touch):

(1).  Members of the No 3rd Runway Coalition include:

Hammersmith & Fulham, Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth, Windsor and Maidenhead Councils, Members of Parliament, over a dozen residents groups from across London, and several environmental organisations.

https://www.no3rdrunwaycoalition.co.uk/members

(2)  The CAA’s FOI response (Appendix 1 Email 21 September 2017) confirms that for the purposes of the updated NPS, it was originally instructed by the DfT to evaluate the three flight path scenarios used by the Airports Commission (“Minimise Total”, “Minimise Newly Affected’ and ‘Maximise Respite’) but using the revised flight number forecasts issued as part of the revised NPS. However, the NPS, AOS and Noise Appendix only consider one scenario; Minimise Total number of people affected.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)’s response to Teddington Action Group’s (TAG) Freedom of Information (FoI) request dated 22 December 2017   https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/aviation_policy_framework_metric_2?nocache=incoming-1088383#incoming-1088383

(3) Acknowledging that highly concentrated flight paths (which the “Minimise Total” option in the NPS entails) will NOT be acceptable over a densely populated area such as Heathrow’s hinterland, both the Heathrow and the DfT confirmed at the Heathrow Community Noise Forum on 22 November 2017 that they will consider a full range of scenarios in relation to flight paths, which will not be restricted to “Minimise Total”. So, Parliament is being asked to make a decision of huge impact on an evidence base the aviation industry does not support.

(4) UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology’s publication, ‘Aircraft Noise’ (2003), quotes from the Australian Senate Select Committee report on the third runway at Sydney, which concluded that the expansion “scarred a city” and “irretrievably complicated the future of airport development in Australia” as well as being an “environmental and social tragedy”. It also stated that the policy of concentrating noise pollution in one area was “a form of discrimination”.

In addition, the Australian Select Committee ‘found that Sydney residents felt they had been misled by the use of average noise contours’. It also stated ‘once noise reached a level high enough to be intrusive, the level of noise beyond would be irrelevant. This relates to the relative importance of the frequency of noise events against the loudness of individual events in determining annoyance’.

(5) The CAA’s FOI response confirms that for the purposes of the updated NPS, it was originally instructed by the DfT to evaluate the three flight path scenarios used by the Airports Commission. However, the NPS only considers one scenario: “Minimise Total number of people affected”.

(6) Within the Government’s response to the January – March 2017 consultation on the Design and Use of UK Airspace, in addition to lowering the average metric threshold to 54dBA LAeq and setting a new 51dBA LAeq level for lowest observable adverse effects level (LOAEL), there is a commitment to use supplementary metrics when considering all major airspace changes. These include numbers of individual noise events over 65dBLAmax and consideration of impact on an easterly and westerly mode only basis.

However, N>65 dBLAmax, 51dBA LAeq contour maps and single mode analysis are missing entirely from the NPS, AoS and Noise Appendix. Whether by accident or design, the failure to include measures now adopted by the Government in considering all major airspace changes, is instrumental in hiding the full extent of the impact of Heathrow expansion finally becoming clear.

It is notable that the FOI response reveals that the CAA advised the DfT that it should not produce 51dBLAeq noise contours as these had never been published before; advice the DfT accepted. However, this hides the fact that until flight paths are defined those potentially affected at the lowest observable adverse effect level (LOAELcould be half of London’s population.

For more information:

Rob Barnstone: 07806 947050, Robert.barnstone@outlook.com

Robert Barnstone

Coordinator | No 3rd Runway Coalition

 

Read more »

Dublin Airport blames runway switch – due to work on main runway – for rise in noise issues

Complaints about noise at Dublin Airport increased by 19% in 2017 as the 2nd runway (not a main runway, but subsidiary) was used more. Figures published by the airport show the public made 1,194 reports of excessive noise from planes landing and taking off – up from 1,003 in 2016. An airport spokesman said the lesser-used runway had been used more at night while the airport’s main runway was being upgraded. Flight paths and approaches took jets over more populated areas when landing on the 2nd runway, explaining why around two-thirds of the complaints to planes using the second runway, known as the “crosswind runway” or runway 16/34. Most were linked to cases where a southern approach was used. Work on the main runway is expected to continue until the end of April. An airport spokesman said he could not predict whether there might be fewer complaints in 2018, even with the runway work finished. DAA figures show that the 1,194 complaints last year came from 423 individuals. DAA plans to build a €320 million 2nd main runway by 2020. Houses in the 69 decibel noise contour near the airport are eligible for a voluntary purchase scheme, including 30% above market price + all legal and moving costs.
.

Dublin Airport blames runway switch for rise in noise issues

By Seán McCárthaigh
January 10th 2018 (The Times)

Complaints about noise at Dublin Airport increased by a fifth last year as the second runway was used more.

Figures published by the airport show the public made 1,194 reports of excessive noise from airplanes landing and taking off — a 19 per cent increase and up from 1,003 in 2016.

An airport spokesman said the lesser-used runway had been used more at night while the airport’s main runway was being upgraded. He said flight paths and approaches took jets over more populated areas when landing on the second runway.

DAA, the airport’s owner, traced about two-thirds of the complaints to planes using the second runway, known as the “crosswind runway” or runway 16/34. Most were linked to cases where a southern approach was used.

“The vast majority of these were due to night work on the main runway’s overlay project and its subsequent non-availability for flight operations,” the spokesman said.

Work on the main runway is expected to continue until the end of April.

The spokesman said he could not predict that the availability of the main runway for night-time landings and take-offs from May would result in fewer complaints in 2018 because noise from aircraft “can be very subjective”.

He added: “While the number of flight movements at Dublin has increased in recent years, the advent of new, quieter, aircraft types has brought substantial reductions in aircraft noise.”

The number of complaints relating to the main runway, which accounted for 93.5 per cent of all flights last year, fell by 44 per cent.

The spokesman said the public should be aware that the Irish Aviation Authority determined which runways were used — a decision that is often based on wind direction.

He said the increase in complaints could also be partially explained by some people making several complaints.

DAA figures show that the 1,194 complaints last year came from 423 individuals. In December, one resident in Killiney logged 15 complaints. Almost a third of complainants last year came from three parts of the city. The top places for complainants were Santry (55) Beaumont (43) and Swords (39), all on the north side of Dublin.

Figures show that complaints come from residents in all parts of the city but predominantly from northside suburbs under flights paths. They have also been received from residents of neighbouring counties, including some living in Dunboyne, Co Meath, and Bray, Co Wicklow.

All aircraft operating in Dublin conform to the standards of the International Civil Aviation Organisation on noise. A €1 million noise and flight track monitoring system has been introduced to ensure minimum disruption to local communities. It includes seven monitoring terminals around north Dublin.

DAA said it had received favourable responses to offers made to 38 residents, mostly in the St Margaret’s area, to buy their homes as part of plans for a €320 million second main runway by 2020. Houses within a specific area near the airport where noise volumes reach 69 decibels are eligible for the voluntary purchase scheme.

The offer, which includes a premium of 30 per cent over market prices as well as legal costs and moving costs for tenants, will remain open for three years after the runway begins operating.

Some parties whose challenge to the runway was refused last year are considering going to the Court of Appeal.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dublin-blames-runway-switch-for-jump-in-jet-noise-problems-thn3fhkfq

.

.

 

Read more »

Heathrow have announced two ‘consultations’ in January 2018 which they labelled as the ‘next step in delivering expansion.’

Heathrow have announced two ‘consultations’ which they labelled as the ‘next step in delivering expansion.’ These will be launched on 17th January 2018, and will run for 10 weeks until 28th March.This is a separate consultation to the Government’s Airports National Policy Statement consultation, the second part of which closes on 19th December. The consultation will have two parts: the first will be on “infrastructure design options” and mitigation measures, while the second will focus on the future design principles for airspace around Heathrow.  There will be around 35 consultation events – details of these will be published after 17th January.  Paul McGuinness, chair of the No Third Runway Coalition, said the announcement was “disingenuous” and “To claim that the public are being consulted, when the only subjects up for discussion exclude the matters on which the public is most concerned, is little more than a charade.” Mr McGuinness added that locals want to be consulted on “the flight paths for the extra 250,000 extra flights each year, and to learn which communities will start to be adversely impacted by aircraft noise for the very first time”. Heathrow is trying to find ways to build the 3rd runway scheme, but at lower cost. It says part of the consultation will be about options like the “reconfiguration of the M25”. 

.

 

HEATHROW CONSULTATION in January 2018

14.12.2017

Heathrow have announced two ‘consultations’ which they labelled as the ‘next step in delivering expansion.’

  • The consultation will launch on 17th January and will run for 10 weeks until 28 March.
  • There will be around 35 consultation events – details of these will be published when it is launched.
  • The consultation is formed of two parts. The first will be on “infrastructure design options” and mitigation measures, while the second will focus on the future design principles for airspace around Heathrow.
  • It is a theoretical consultation on both counts.

Heathrow Press Release:

14.12.2017

Heathrow expansion hits next delivery milestone with launch of planning consultation

  • Heathrow will launch a public planning consultation on expansion and future operations on 17th January
  • Local communities to help shape Heathrow’s future airport design and principles for changes to airspace
  • 10-week consultation is the latest delivery milestone and keeps Heathrow on track
  • Consultation will include new options on phasing construction of new terminal capacity to help meet affordability challenge

Heathrow expansion has taken a significant step towards delivery as the airport unveiled the details of a public planning consultation on the project set for the new year. This is a separate consultation to the Government’s Airports National Policy Statement consultation.

The 10-week consultation will launch on 17th January and run until 28th March, giving local communities an opportunity to shape Heathrow’s expansion proposals, that aim to support an even more sustainable future airport operation. Heathrow’s consultation is the latest expansion milestone, keeping Heathrow on schedule to deliver the trading infrastructure Britain will need to succeed post-Brexit.

Heathrow’s consultation will be formed of two parts – the first on infrastructure design options for an expanded Heathrow and how best to mitigate environmental impacts, while the second will focus on the future design principles for airspace around Heathrow.

Importantly, Heathrow will not compromise on any of its commitments to the local communities as part of this consultation – including compensating eligible property owners the full market value of their property plus an additional 25%, the pledge to introduce a 6.5 hour ban on scheduled night flights [NB. Note this is scheduled.  That means any flight that “needs” to be during that 6.5 hour period will be allowed …. so it is little different to the current situation in reality … AW comment] and the commitment to only release new capacity if strict air quality limits can be met. [That is, or course, never going to happen. Can anyone seriously believe Heathrow will agree to not make much use of its very expensive new runway, just because some air quality sensors are above certain limits?  Heathrow needs to use this new runway as intensively as possible, to repay investors etc and recoup the massive £17 billion, or whatever the cost ends up as.   … AW comment]

Over the past year, Heathrow has been working alongside local stakeholders and airline partners to evolve the expansion plans submitted to the Airports Commission. Heathrow’s consultation in January will be an opportunity for the public to view our emerging proposals and options in detail and provide feedback on them.

These include options on the design of the expanded airport facilities, the reconfiguration of the M25 and our plans for how environmental impacts, during and through construction, can be best managed.

Delivering expansion affordably is a key priority for Heathrow and the consultation will also include how this can be achieved by phasing the construction of new terminal infrastructure at the airport. By incrementally increasing infrastructure to align more closely with passenger growth, Heathrow is increasingly confident expansion can be delivered, while keeping airport charges close to current levels – ultimately resulting in more affordable fares for passengers.

Emma Gilthorpe, Heathrow’s Executive Director Expansion, urges local residents to participate in the consultation saying:

“Expanding Heathrow is pivotal to Britain’s future prosperity and it’s a chance to make the airport a better neighbour for our local communities. Over the past year, we’ve been working hard to evolve our expansion plans and have come up with several new options to deliver it more responsibly and affordably.

“Next January, we’ll be sharing these options in a 10-week public planning consultation and we want to hear what you think. By working together throughout the consultation, the public can help shape our plans and, jointly, we can ensure that expansion delivers for our passengers, businesses across Britain and importantly for our local communities.”

Ends.

http://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/details/81/Expansion-News-23/9059

.

Heathrow says: 

The details of the locations will be made available on this website or https://www.heathrowexpansion.com in the New Year. There are a number of ways to respond to the consultation – online, email, letter or by filling in a feedback form and sending it to us.

Feedback from this consultation will be incorporated into detailed proposals, which will then form part of a second consultation to be held in 2019.


.

 

.

Heathrow Airport to unveil plans to deliver expansion “more responsibly and affordably”

By Rebecca Smith (City AM)

14.12.2017

Heathrow has today announced it will unveil plans to deliver airport expansion “more responsibly and affordably”, with the launch of its planning consultation into its long-awaited new runway next month.

The airport’s consultation, which is a separate one to the government’s on its airports national policy statement, will cover aspects such as airport design and the big question mark over reconfiguring the M25 for the new runway.

It will also outline Heathrow’s proposals for “delivering expansion affordably”, including how the airport could phase construction of new terminal developments. Heathrow said that gradually increasing infrastructure to match up with passenger growth will help the airport complete expansion while keeping airport charges close to current levels.

This has been a contentious point for some – notably the boss of British Airways owner IAG. Willie Walsh has been sceptical of Heathrow’s claims it will deliver expansion while keeping airport charges close to current levels, saying the third runway will lead to a rise in airport charges that will then have to be passed onto passengers.

Walsh has also expressed concerns over the M25 plans previously offered up by the airport.

Heathrow has been looking into its various options with local stakeholders and airline partners to update the plans previously submitted to the Airports Commission. Next month’s consultation will provide the public with a first glance at the developed proposals, as well as an opportunity to come back with feedback on them.

The 10-week consultation kicks off on 17 January and will run until 28 March. Separately, the government’s national policy statement is expected to go before MPs in the first half of next year.

Heathrow’s consultation proposals will be offered up in two parts, with the first on infrastructure design options for an expanded Heathrow and considerations on how to mitigate the environmental hit from the airport’s development. The second will look at future design principles for airspace around Heathrow.

The airport today reiterated its previous pledges to local communities concerned about expansion, including a commitment to compensating eligible property owners the full market value of their homes along with an extra 25 per cent.

Emma Gilthorpe, Heathrow’s executive director expansion, said:

Expanding Heathrow is pivotal to Britain’s future prosperity and it’s a chance to make the airport a better neighbour for our local communities. Over the past year, we’ve been working hard to evolve our expansion plans and have come up with several new options to deliver it more responsibly and affordably.

Next January, we’ll be sharing these options in a 10-week public planning consultation and we want to hear what you think. By working together throughout the consultation, the public can help shape our plans and, jointly, we can ensure that expansion delivers for our passengers, businesses across Britain and importantly for our local communities.

However, Paul McGuinness, chair of the No Third Runway Coalition, said the announcement was “disingenuous”.

“To claim that the public are being consulted, when the only subjects up for discussion exclude the matters on which the public is most concerned, is little more than a charade,” he said.

McGuinness added that locals want to be consulted on “the flight paths for the extra 250,000 extra flights each year, and to learn which communities will start to be adversely impacted by aircraft noise for the very first time”.

http://www.cityam.com/277484/heathrow-airport-unveil-plans-deliver-expansion-more

.

.


Public to get first say on Heathrow expansion for three years in consultation

Heathrow will be holding its first consultation on its plans for expansion next year

By Bradley Gerrard  (Telegraph)

14 DECEMBER 2017

The public will be able to give feedback for the first time in more than three years on Heathrow’s expansion as part of a consultation being launched by the airport next year.

The 10-week public planning consultation, which starts on Jan 17 and will run until March 28, will allow the public to put forward their views on various factors of the expansion scheme.

These include the design of terminals, how best to mitigate the environmental impacts of the airport and also key aspects such as whether to bridge over or tunnel under the M25. It will also look at whether flights should be concentrated over a single area or spread out over several.

The airport said it would be keeping its promise to property owners whose homes will be demolished due to the expansion of paying them full market value plus 25pc and so this would not feature in the consultation. It also said it would stick to a 6.5 hour ban on scheduled night flights – but would be able to comment on when flights would start and finish – and only release new capacity if strict air quality limits could be met.

Heathrow said it had been working with airlines and various local bodies to shape its plans and suggested phasing the construction to help keep airport charges “close to current levels”.

Chief executive John Holland Kaye recently said the airport had taken costs down compared to its initial £17bn estimate. This has partly been caused by the emergence of a rival scheme from Arora Group, the largest landowner at Heathrow, which says it can deliver a third runway project for £12.4bn.

Responses will be collated by the airport once the consultation closes and help it create its masterplan for expansion, which will then be consulted on publicly again in 2019.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/12/14/public-get-first-say-heathrow-expansion-three-years-consultation/

.

.

.

Read more »

4 main councils opposing Heathrow 3rd runway say it is unbuildable, due to noise and air pollution

Councils opposed to expansion at Heathrow have told the Transport Select Committee (TSC) inquiry into the Airports NPS that the most recent evidence published by the Government continues to demonstrate that a 3rd Heathrow runway could not be built without causing unacceptable air and noise pollution. They say that if ministers continue to support a 3rd runway, it will blight the area around the airport while failing to solve what they see as a “need” for extra airport capacity in the South East.  The councils point out that the DfT’s 2nd consultation on the NPS fails to show how, with a new runway, the airport could meet air quality limits in an area where pollution levels are deteriorating. Councillor Ravi Govindia, Leader of Wandsworth Council, said: “… it is clear that a third Heathrow runway is not deliverable within the new timescale of an opening in 2026. The shorter the timescale the more likely that illegal air pollution will result.”  The councils have also warned the TSC that the Government’s refusal to allow more time for consultation on the new evidence (just 8 weeks, ending on 19th December) “supports the view that the Secretary of State has effectively made up his mind to support Heathrow and that this is affecting the fairness of the consultation.”
.

Third Heathrow Runway ‘Unbuildable’

Four London council leaders warn MPs on transport select committee that third runway cannot be lawfully built

6.12.2017 (Putney SW15)

www.2MGroup.org.uk

Councils opposed to expansion at Heathrow have told the Transport Select Committee that the most recent evidence published by the Government continues to demonstrate that a third runway could not be built at the airport without causing unacceptable air and noise pollution.

They say that if ministers continue to support a third runway it will blight the area around the airport while failing to solve the need for extra airport capacity in the South East.

The latest evidence which has been published as part of the Government’s revised National Policy Statement (NPS) fails to show how an expanded airport could meet air quality limits in an area where pollution levels are deteriorating. This makes a third Heathrow runway unbuildable while expansion at Gatwick could go ahead without this risk.

Councillor Ravi Govindia, Leader of Wandsworth Council, said:
“Given the hurdles that would have to be overcome it is clear that a third Heathrow runway is not deliverable within the new timescale of an opening in 2026. The shorter the timescale the more likely that illegal air pollution will result.

“If there is a need for more capacity in the South East it can be built more quickly at Gatwick. It would be achieved at a lower cost and within lawful pollution limits with fewer people affected by noise. It would also offer more domestic routes than Heathrow.”

The councils say that despite the new third runway opening date of 2026 and the projected rapid increase in early passenger demand, the targets set for increased public transport share remain set at 2030 and 2040. In these circumstances increased air pollution from road traffic is inevitable.

The councils have also warned the TSC that the Government’s refusal to allow more time for the new evidence produced for the revised NPS to be analysed supports the view that the Secretary of State has effectively made up his mind to support Heathrow and that this is affecting the fairness of the consultation.

The councils also warn that other parts of the UK could have to pay huge sums for the increased investment in rail projects around the airport. Currently the Government is offering no information on what the costs of improved surface access will be, what proportion of the cost will be met by the taxpayer and whether they will be completed on time.

Cllr Paul Hodgins, Leader of Richmond Council said:
“Expanding Heathrow is more than a West London issue, it affects every community in the country. “The evidence is clear that expanding Gatwick can deliver more domestic routes and more competition, with less impact on quality of life for local residents, all while leaving billions available for public infrastructure investment elsewhere.

“The only argument the Government has left is that Heathrow and the country needs a massive hub. In other words, it is simply a trophy project to boost Heathrow in the league table of world airports, as there is no league table that combines the network of airports serving a city. “In Britain, we should be promoting competition, and a better quality of life for our residents.”

Cllr Ray Puddifoot, Leader of Hillingdon Council said: “The latest evidence proves that a third runway at Heathrow Airport will exceed air quality limits. Expansion will not only cause increased noise pollution, but will damage the environment and will be detrimental to the health and well being of people in London. Gatwick has always been the better option, with more economic benefits and less impact on the environment.”

Cllr Simon Dudley, leader of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, said: “We are yet to see any evidence that the proposed expansion of Heathrow would do anything other than increase air pollution and have a detrimental effect on those living near to the airport.

“As the revised National Policy Statement shows, and as we have said from the very beginning, Gatwick is the obvious location for airport expansion in the south east and the proposals at Heathrow should no longer be considered a viable option.

“I understand that proposals have been submitted from a private company and there could be other proposals that could save public funds as well as reduce the impact on residents. It is clearly time to establish a new Airports Commission and revisit this flawed decision to expand Heathrow as proposed.”

The submission to the Transport Select Committee has been complied by Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead councils. You can read the full submission on the TSC website at  http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/transport-committee/airports-nps/written/74809.html 

and a large number of submissions can be seen at  http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/transport-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/airports-nps-17-19/publications/

December 6, 2017

http://www.putneysw15.com/shared/issueheathrowsw051.htm

.

.


See earlier:

 

Leaders of 4 main councils opposed to Heathrow favour a Gatwick runway, and tell residents to respond to NPS consultation

Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead councils have been campaigning against Heathrow expansion for more than a decade. They argue that expanding the airport will have a major impact on West London. The expansion will cause irreconcilable damage to the environment and people’s health. It will cost tax payers as much as £20bn. The four councils are encouraging their residents to respond to the 2nd NPS consultation, about a possible 3rd Heathrow runway (deadline 19th December). This consultation is happening partly due to complaints from the councils that the DfT had withheld important new information from the public.  Cllr Ray Puddifoot, Leader of Hillingdon Council, said: “A third runway at Heathrow would be disastrous for Londoners….”  Cllr Paul Hodgins, Leader of Richmond Council, said:  “This is all about having a single trophy airport, instead of a network of airports that brings greater benefit. Over the past ten years people in Richmond upon Thames have voiced their concerns about the possible expansion of Heathrow in their thousands. We must not stop telling the government that Heathrow expansion is the wrong choice.”  The leaders of the four councils back a runway at Gatwick instead, preferring to transfer the misery onto others, whose interests they do not represent.

Click here to view full story…

Leader of Richmond Council: Government aviation strategy ignores Heathrow health impacts

The Leader of Richmond Council, commenting on the DfT’s consultation on the draft aviation strategy (closed 13th October), says it tries to shut down any discussion on expansion at Heathrow and puts the demand for additional flights ahead of the health impact on communities affected by increased noise and worsening air quality. Leader Paul Hodgins, speaking on behalf of Wandsworth, Richmond, Hillingdon and Windsor and Maidenhead councils, said: “It is difficult to see what purpose the draft aviation strategy serves when, in it, the government is ignoring the problem of Heathrow. First we had a pro-Heathrow airport draft national policy statement with no details on flightpaths, out of date passenger demand figures, an economic case which doesn’t stand up and unattainable pollution limits. Now we have a national strategy that leaves out Heathrow.  Any serious attempt at a UK-wide policy must come before any policy on individual airports, including Heathrow.”  He also said: “The Government should withdraw this partial and disingenuous strategy document, abandon its unjustified policy support for Heathrow and begin again with an approach that people can trust.”

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

Read more »

Heathrow may back 3rd runway play by Arora, destroying even more homes than NW runway scheme

Heathrow have backed a new plan for a 3rd runway, which appears to cut construction costs for the scheme at the expense of the loss of even more homes and communities, in an attempt to persuade politicians to vote through the scheme in 2018. The scheme, proposed by the Arora Group is for a 500 metre shorter runway, a bit further east. It might cost £6.7 billion less than Heathrow Airport’s own North West Runway plan. John Holland-Kaye, Heathrow’s CEO, said : “it would not surprise us if we do something with him [Arora] as we expand the airport.” The Arora plan would bring parts of Harlington inside the new airport boundary, along with the whole of Sipson. It would also leave Longford village boxed in and sandwiched metres between two runways. The total number of homes that would be set for demolition would be much closer to a thousand, even higher than Heathrow’s own proposal of 783 homes lost. The plan would bring the new airport boundary closer to the original scheme put forward by BAA in 2009, which was successfully defeated in the High Court. That plan proposed a 2,200-metre runway across Sipson and Harlington. Residents in the Heathrow villages are upset, as this causes yet more uncertainty, worry and fear about their future. 
.

 

 

Heathrow back new runway play destroying even more homes

4 December 2017 (Stop Heathrow Expansion press release)

http://heathrow.thearoragroup.com/proposal/smarter-runway-modifications/

Heathrow Airport have backed a new plan for a third runway, which appears to cut construction costs for the scheme at the expense of the loss of even more homes and communities, in an attempt to persuade politicians to vote through the scheme in 2018.

The scheme, proposed by the founder of the Arora Group, Surinder Arora, would bring the runway further east and reduce its length by 500 metres, costing £6.7bn less than Heathrow Airport’s own North West Runway plan.

John Holland-Kaye, the company’s CEO, revealed today that “it would not surprise us if we do something with him [Arora] as we expand the airport” before adding “he is an important local stakeholder and it would amaze me if we don’t do something together” (1).

The plan would bring parts of Harlington inside the new airport boundary, along with the whole of Sipson. It would also leave Longford village boxed in and sandwiched metres between two runways (2). The total number of homes that would be set for demolition would be much closer to a thousand, even higher than Heathrow’s own proposal (3).

Jackie Clark-Basten, Chair of campaign group Stop Heathrow Expansion, said“People’s lives are being played with. This proposal by Arora and now backed by Heathrow shows that Heathrow is acting out of desperation in order to get this runway, with little care as to who and how they blight people who previously thought they were not going to face losing their home.

 “Despite Heathrow spending millions over the past 5 years telling politicians how much different this proposal is from their previous proposal, it is looking more and more similar.”

The plan would bring the new airport boundary closer to the original scheme put forward by BAA in 2009, which was successfully defeated in the High Court. That plan proposed a 2,200-metre runway across Sipson and Harlington.

Christine Taylor, Harlington resident whose home falls within the proposed Compulsory Purchase Zone for the first time, said: “This is ludicrous. Despite Heathrow claiming the last third runway proposal is totally different, it may turn out very similar to the original proposal we fought off last time.

“Clearly a third runway is undeliverable and endless versions and proposals serve only to show their desperation, as we head towards a parliamentary vote.”

Ends.

Notes for editors:

  1. Daily Telegraph, 4 December 2017 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/12/03/heathrow-may-work-rival-runway-expansion/
  2. Map of the Arora Scheme http://heathrow.thearoragroup.com/proposal/smarter-runway-modifications/
  3. http://heathrow.thearoragroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Response-from-the-Arora-Group.pdf

http://stopheathrowexpansion.co.uk/press-releases-1/2017/12/4/heathrow-backs-new-runway-plan-destroying-even-more-homes

.


See earlier:

Holland-Kaye not ruling out Heathrow working with rival bid, by Arora, on building 3rd runway scheme

Heathrow CEO John Holland Kaye has said he is not ruling out some form of collaboration with the team behind the Arora group bid to build a 3rd Heathrow runway.  Surinder Arora, a rich businessman who owns 16 hotels, a golf course and his own private airfield, is the largest single landowner on the site marked for Heathrow expansion. In July he put forward a plan, with US engineering firm Bechtel, in which he claimed the expansion could be done for £12.4 billion (shorter runway, bit further east) – roughly £5 billion cheaper than Heathrow’s initial estimate. Heathrow has since altered its plans to bring down construction costs, as airlines and investors are opposed to the sky-high costs.  Now Heathrow may also try to work with Mr Arora’s company in some way. Holland-Kaye said: “It would not surprise us if we do something with him …” but would not speculate on what. Heathrow and the Arora Group are currently working on two  Heathrow hotels. The 2nd DfT consultation on the Airports NPS (for the 3rd Heathrow runway) welcomed competing bids for the work and stated the Government did not have a preference for who constructed the 3rd runway as long as it met the specifications outlined by the Airports Commission.  Jock Lowe is still promoting his “Heathrow Hub” scheme, for an extended northern runway, which is claimed to cost around £10 billion.

Click here to view full story…

Rival Heathrow expansion consortium, Arora, upbeat as Government opens door to competition

The Telegraph reports that the government has said it welcomes competition in the construction of the nation’s airports. Hotel owner Surinder Arora had earlier this year proposed a cheaper way to build a Heathrow 3rd runway, cutting about £5 billion off the price. Government documents related to the expansion had previously assumed Heathrow would be in charge of the construction project and choose which contractors it wanted to help it fulfil the scheme. But the DfT says in the revised consultation on its Airports NPS (National Policy Statement) that it would welcome competing bids for the work. The NPS consultation says: “For the avoidance of doubt, the Airports NPS does not identify any statutory undertaker as the appropriate person or appropriate persons to carry out the preferred scheme.” And there could be “more than one application for development consent, dealing with different components individually”. The Telegraph believes a key difference, if a body other than Heathrow did the building, would be that the party behind the construction would receive the associated income it generates from passenger and airline charges, as well as retail rental payments. But there could be more risks, more costs etc.

Click here to view full story…

Airport hotel tycoon, Surinder Arora, wants Heathrow runway built soon – but a bit cheaper

A wealthy hotel tycoon, Surinder Arora, has submitted plans for a 3rd Heathrow. He has been a long time backer of a runway, and says his plan would be £5 billion cheaper than what Heathrow is offering (costing £17.5 billion). He has put his proposal to the government’s public consultation on Heathrow (the NPS consultation actually closed on 25th May.) Heathrow has been trying to find ways to make their runway + terminal scheme cheaper, as the airlines are not keen on paying the higher charges that would be needed. Ticket prices would rise. (ie. lower airline profit). The Arora Group’s proposals include altering the design of terminal buildings and taxiways, and reducing the amount of land to be built on.  They know the alterations to roads, including the M25 and the junction of the M25 and the M4, are massive problems and “threaten deliverability” of the runway project. They therefore want to “shift the runway”. Where to?  All this shows how very uncertain the runway plan has become, and the immense doubts – especially on money. Heathrow said they would welcome views on various options  “in the public consultation later this year.” The plans must first be assessed by the Commons transport committee, be amended by the DfT and then voted on in Parliament …. it is not a quick process.

Click here to view full story…

Arora’s plan for a cheaper 3rd Heathrow runway means putting it further east. ie. more noise for London

Surinder Arora, a hotel magnate, wants to get the 3rd Heathrow runway built quickly, and has made some suggestions of how it could be done more easily – and at least £5-6 billion more cheaply. But his scheme, for a shorter northern runway, means there would be even more noise pollution over London than from Heathrow’s own £17.6bn proposal. Heathrow airport did not, apparently, know of his plans till he went public with them.  If the new runway was shorter (3.2km not 3.5km) and moved a bit east, to Sipson, there would be cost savings. But this could mean noisier flights over London as aircraft may have to fly slightly lower over London by something like 300 feet or so (at a guess). One of Heathrow’s reasons for its own location for the runway was to get this 300 ft or so height gain, claiming it would make all the difference to noise levels.  The 2009 scheme, by Heathrow, for a much shorter 2.2km runway failed in part because of noise concerns, as did a plan for a 2.8km runway rejected by the Airports Commission. Willie Walsh of IAG, and Craig Keeper of Virgin Atlantic, want the cheapest scheme possible, to keep their costs down, and avoid having to increase the cost of their air fares. Amusingly, the Heathrow airport runway plan involves demolishing one of Mr Arora’s 5 hotels at the airport, two of which are under construction. Mr Arora says he was not informed by Heathrow (Willie Walsh claimed the same, for his head office building).

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2017/07/aroras-plan-for-a-cheaper-3rd-heathrow-runway-means-putting-it-further-east-ie-more-noise-for-london/

.

.

 

 

Read more »

Stevenage aircraft noise: Luton airport extends delayed landing gear trials

Planes flying over Stevenage on their way into Luton will continue to delay lowering their landing gear as part of an extended trial to reduce noise over the town.  Luton airport started the trial between May and June this year, with more than 75% of aircraft delaying their landing gear deployment – which cuts down drag and reduces noise for the areas that benefit. The trial started after discussions between the airport, Stevenage residents, town MP Stephen McPartland and Stevenage Borough Council. Over the trial period, Luton airport says average noise from aircraft reduced by 2.7dB at six nautical miles and 3.4dB at seven nautical miles from the airport, meaning (technically) that noise on the ground was reduced by an average of 50%. (In reality, 3 dB is the smallest change in noise the human ear can detect, and the “50%” reduction is just because noise is measured on a logarithmic scale …. that makes the cut sound far better than it is ….) But there has been a small but noticeable reduction in noise and communities that have benefited have asked the airport to continue running the trial. Luton airport has revised its arrival code of practice to include recommendations to delay the deployment of landing gear. Three airline operators have also amended their standard operating practices to include the recommendations.
.

 

Stevenage aircraft noise: Luton airport extends delayed landing gear trials

By Martin Elvery

1.12.2017

.
Aeroplanes passing over Stevenage on their way into London Luton Airport will continue to delay lowering their landing gear as part of an extended trial to reduce noise over the town. 

LLA began the trial between May and June this year, with more than three quarters of aircraft delaying their landing gear deployment – which the airport says cuts down drag and reduces noise.

The trial came after discussions between the airport, Stevenage residents, town MP Stephen McPartland and Stevenage Borough Council.

Over the trial period, the airport says average noise from aircraft reduced by 2.7dB at six nautical miles and 3.4dB at seven nautical miles from the airport, meaning noise on the ground was reduced by an average of 50 per cent.

As a result, it says communities reported a noticeable reduction in noise and have asked the airport to continue running the trial.

Mr McPartland has applauded the extension.

He said: “I would like to congratulate London Luton Airport on their efforts to reduce the impacts of aircraft noise for those living below the flightpath in Stevenage.

“I am extremely encouraged by the work they have put into this trial, but will continue to lobby the airport to ensure they do all they can to minimise the impacts and maximise the benefits of the airport on my constituents.”

Councillor John Gardner, executive member for environment and regeneration at SBC, said: “The council has been an active member of the London Luton Airport Consultative for a number of years and we thank them for holding a special Aircraft Noise Surgery for Stevenage residents earlier this year.

“We welcome the results of the landing gear trail reducing noise levels and will continue to talk to the Airport authorities and central government as we are aware that this is a problem for Stevenage residents.

“We recognise the important economic benefits of Luton Airport, but it is vital that Airport management continue to listen to the concerns of those that live on the flight paths and use the latest technologies and innovation to reduce the impact of noise. We will be meeting with Luton Borough Council to discuss the issues raised by the growth plans for Luton Airport as we hope the positive measures the airport has taken will not be lost as the number of flights increases.”

LLA has revised its arrival code of practice to include recommendations to delay the deployment of landing gear. Three airline operators have also amended their standard operating practices to include the recommendations.

LLA continues to work with the airlines and aircraft operators which did not take part in the trial to encourage them to delay deployment of landing gear where possible.

Luton Airpot operations director Neil Thompson said: “The trial is just one part of our commitment to reducing noise, and we’re working hard to ensure more of our airline partners adopt this initiative.

“The 50 per cent noise reduction and positive feedback from local communities has been great to see. “

“Noise is an unavoidable part of running an airport, and our aim is to work constructively with local communities and our partners to strike the right balance between minimising the impact of this noise while maximising the benefits of a successful airport to the communities it supports,” he added.

http://www.thecomet.net/news/stevenage-aircraft-noise-luton-airport-extends-delayed-landing-gear-trials-1-5303619

.

.

.

Read more »

Mayor’s Draft London Plan, out to consultation, adamant that aviation’s noise, CO2 and air pollution stay within limits

The Mayor of London has put out for consultation the New Draft London Plan (ends 2 March 2018). There is an extensive section on aviation, with the Mayor adamant that the aviation sector, and any airport expansion, must stay within environmental limits. The Policy T8 Aviation (P 433 of the consultation document) sets out core principles. These include:   D. The Mayor will oppose the expansion of Heathrow Airport unless it can be shown that no additional noise or air quality harm would result, and that the benefits of future regulatory and technology improvements would be fairly shared with affected communities.  E. All airport expansion proposals should demonstrate how public transport and other surface access networks would accommodate resulting increases in demand alongside forecast background growth; this should include credible plans by the airport for funding and delivery of the required infrastructure.  F. Proposals that would lead to changes in airport operations or air traffic movements must take full account of their environmental impacts and the views of affected communities. Any changes to London’s airspace must treat London’s major airports equitably when airspace is allocated.  And C – the environmental impacts of aviation must be fully acknowledged and the aviation industry should fully meet its external and environmental costs particularly in respect of noise, air quality and climate change …
.

 

Draft London Plan

“This new and ambitious London Plan from Mayor Sadiq Khan is a blueprint for the future development and sustainable, inclusive growth of our city.”

Launch 1st December 2017. Ends 2nd March 2018

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/download-draft-london-plan


Policy T8 Aviation

P 433 of  https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/new_london_plan_december_2017_web_version.pdf

A.  The Mayor supports the case for additional aviation capacity in the south
east of England providing it would meet London’s passenger and freight
needs, recognising that this is crucial to London’s continuing prosperity
and to maintaining its international competitiveness and world-city
status.

B.  The Mayor supports the role of London’s airports in enhancing London’s
spatial growth, particularly within Opportunity Areas well connected to
the airports by public transport and which can accommodate significant
numbers of new homes and jobs.

C. The environmental impacts of aviation must be fully acknowledged and
the aviation industry should fully meet its external and environmental
costs particularly in respect of noise, air quality and climate change; any
airport expansion scheme must be appropriately assessed and if required
demonstrate that there is an overriding public interest or no suitable
alternative solution with fewer environmental impacts.

D. The Mayor will oppose the expansion of Heathrow Airport unless it can be
shown that no additional noise or air quality harm would result, and that
the benefits of future regulatory and technology improvements would be
fairly shared with affected communities.

E. All airport expansion proposals should demonstrate how public transport
and other surface access networks would accommodate resulting
increases in demand alongside forecast background growth; this should
include credible plans by the airport for funding and delivery of the
required infrastructure.

F. Proposals that would lead to changes in airport operations or air traffic
movements must take full account of their environmental impacts and the views of affected communities. Any changes to London’s airspace must
treat London’s major airports equitably when airspace is allocated.

G. Better use should be made of existing airport capacity, underpinned by
upgraded passenger and freight facilities and improved surface access
links, in particular rail.

H. Airport operators should work closely with airlines, Transport for London
and other transport providers and stakeholders to ensure straightforward,
seamless and integrated connectivity and to improve facilities and
inclusive access. They should also increase the proportion of journeys
passengers and staff make by sustainable means such as rail, bus and
cycling, and minimise the environmental impacts of airport servicing and
onward freight transport.

I. Development of general and business aviation activity should generally
be supported providing this would not lead to additional environmental
harm, or impact on scheduled flight operations. Any significant shift in the
mix of operations using an airport – for example introduction of scheduled
flights at airports not generally offering such flights – should normally be
refused.

J. New heliports should be refused, other than for emergency services, and
steps should be taken to reduce helicopters overflying London.

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/new_london_plan_december_2017_web_version.pdf


In addition, the consultation document states – on aviation:

10.8.1   London’s major airports provide essential connectivity for passengers
and freight, support vital trade, inward investment and tourism, generate
prosperity, and provide and support significant numbers of jobs.

10.8.2   The aviation industry must fully address its environmental and health
impacts. Government and industry must also recognise local communities’
concerns about aviation noise and pollution, consult fully with those
affected, and use new technologies to deliver tangible reductions in noise
exposure and pollution.

10.8.3   It is important to make best use of existing airport capacity, which fast,
frequent, sustainable surface access can support. Opportunity Areas with
excellent airport rail connections can serve as airport gateways and be the
focus for new development, in turn helping meet London’s need for new
homes and jobs.

10.8.4   The Mayor recognises the need for additional runway capacity in the
south east of England, but this should not be at the expense of London’s environment or the health of its residents. Hundreds of thousands of Londoners are already exposed to illegal levels of air pollution and significant noise pollution as a result of Heathrow airport’s current operations and activities.

10.8.5   Airport expansion should only be taken forward on the basis that noise impacts are avoided, minimised and mitigated, and proposals should not seek to claim or utilise noise improvements resulting from technology improvements unrelated to expansion. Nor should expansion result in significant numbers of new people being exposed to new or additional noise harm.

10.8.6   Airport expansion should not worsen existing air quality or contribute to exceedance of air quality limits, nor should it seek to claim or utilise air quality improvements resulting from unrelated Mayoral, local or national policies and actions. Airport expansion should also incorporate Air Quality Positive principles to minimise operational and construction impacts.

10.8.7   The Mayor will therefore strongly oppose any expansion of Heathrow Airport that would result in additional environmental harm. Air quality gains secured by the Mayor or noise reductions resulting from new technology must be used to improve public health, not to support expansion. The Mayor also believes that expansion at Gatwick could deliver significant benefits to London and the UK more quickly, at less cost, and with significantly fewer adverse environmental impacts. Stansted Airport could, in due course, make better use of its single runway if its flight cap were raised, subject to appropriate environmental mitigation and controls. London City Airport is working to upgrade its passenger facilities and enhance operational efficiency in conjunction with a reduction of its maximum permitted number of movements and the introduction of additional environmental mitigation measures. Luton and Southend airports are also undertaking substantial upgrades of their terminal facilities.

10.8.8   Any airport expansion proposals must show that surface transport networks would be able to accommodate the additional trips they would lead to. It will not be sufficient to rely on schemes designed to cater for background growth such as the Elizabeth Line, Thameslink and Crossrail 2. If significant airport expansion is to be accommodated sustainably and not lead to additional road traffic movements, this will require major investment by the airport authority and central Government in new infrastructure, particularly rail, in order to deliver the necessary additional capacity and connectivity.

10.8.9   The aviation impacts on climate change must be fully recognised and emissions from aviation activities must be compatible with national and international obligations to tackle climate change. The implications for other sectors and other airports must also be fully understood when expansion proposals are brought forward, and aviation greenhouse gas emissions must be aligned with the Mayor’s carbon reduction targets.

10.8.10   Air freight plays an important role in supporting industry in London and the UK, and the provision of both bellyhold and dedicated freighter capacity should be an important consideration when plans for airport development in the south east of England are taken forward.

10.8.11   General and business aviation, typically utilising smaller airports, can complement and help sustain London’s economy. However, the introduction of scheduled flights at such airports can significantly impact local communities, and scheduled flights should therefore normally operate from London’s major airports which also tend to have much better surface and public transport networks in place.

10.8.12  The noise impacts from helicopters can be considerable and the regime governing helicopter flights over London should be urgently reviewed. An updated regime should take full account of London’s spatial growth and changes in technology to reduce noise impacts and safety risks.

==============

and

 

2.1.62   The area contains a range of opportunities to support London’s economic development and deliver new housing and environmental improvements. Policy T8 Aviation confirms that the Mayor will oppose any expansion of Heathrow Airport unless it can be shown that: no additional noise or air quality harm would result; the benefits of future regulatory and technology improvements would be fairly shared with affected communities; and that sufficient surface access capacity would be provided by the Government and/or the airport authority.

and

 

3.13.5   Heathrow and London City Airport Operators have responsibility for noise action plans for airports. Policy T8 Aviation sets out the Mayor’s approach to aviation-related development.

 

Consultation on the New Draft London Plan begins on Friday 1 December.

From 4 December 2017 you will be able to comment on the plan online.

All comments must be received by 5pm on Friday 2 March 2018.

How to respond etc at

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/download-draft-london-plan

Consultation document at

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/new_london_plan_december_2017_web_version.pdf

.

.

.

 

Read more »

CAA invite anyone affected by aircraft noise to complete their survey – ends 5th January 2018

The CAA has a current consultation on aircraft noise, for those affected by it. The consultation started on 6th July and ends on 5th January. It is a short survey that is easy for individuals to complete on the basis of their own personal noise experience. The CAA says  it is “looking at how we can influence the aviation industry’s noise performance, and we would like to hear from people impacted by aviation noise to get a better understanding of what you would like us to do about noise.” (Anything other than not allow more and more flights ….) The CAA says: “Answering these questions will help us to understand which areas people who are affected by aviation noise would like us to focus on, and therefore help to define our work programme. However, we will not always be able to act, and at the moment we are looking at how we use our existing powers to improve noise.” … “We intend to use this information to inform how we use our existing powers to improve noise performance in the coming years. If we believe that we, or another organisation, need more powers to influence the things that matter most to people, we will explain why this is the case when we publish a response.”
.

 

Survey at

https://consultations.caa.co.uk/policy-development/aviation-noise-impacts/consultation/subpage.2017-06-21.5194745678/

Overview

Closes 5 Jan 2018

Opened 6 Jul 2017

https://consultations.caa.co.uk/policy-development/aviation-noise-impacts/

This review relates to our broad role on noise management. Separately, we are working to ensure our airspace change decision-making process includes appropriate evidence about noise and appropriate engagement with people impacted by aviation noise. As that work is already under way, it isn’t covered by this review, which is looking at further work we may undertake, once we have identified what is important to people.

Why We Are Consulting

We intend to use this information to inform how we use our existing powers to improve noise performance in the coming years. If we believe that we, or another organisation, need more powers to influence the things that matter most to people, we will explain why this is the case when we publish a response.

Give Us Your Views

Contact

nic.stevenson@caa.co.uk

.


Below are the questions in the survey:

About your area

1. To help us understand which issues affect which areas, please select the country or region where you live.

2. Please enter your postcode

3. It can sometimes be hard to tell, but which of the following airport(s) do you believe impact(s) you:

4. What type of aircraft noise do you think impacts on you most?

5. If the CAA was to tackle just three of the aviation noise issues that concern you, which would you like to see us focus on? (select up to three things)

Options are:

Aircraft flying lower than they should be

Aircraft flying where they shouldn’t be flying

Aircraft having their landing gear down

Aircraft numbers increasing without being able to have a say

Aircraft are flying in different places and no one told me

Flights late at night

Flights early in the morning

Helicopter noise at unsociable hours

Helicopter noise in general

My local airport isn’t doing enough to manage noise

No organisation listening to community concerns

Nobody represents my interests to my local airport

Noise from aircraft when they are on the ground

Noise from light aircraft

Noise from small airfields

Not being given enough information about aircraft noise when I moved house

Stopping noise in tranquil areas (like National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

The information my local airport provides is difficult to understand

The tone of noise from particular aircraft (for instance engine whine or buzz)

There is no national planning policy that guides against new homes being built under flight paths

 

 
 
 

Your experience of aviation noise

4. What type of aircraft noise do you think impacts on you most?

5. If the CAA was to tackle just three of the aviation noise issues that concern you, which would you like to see us focus on? (select up to three things)

Options are:

Aircraft flying lower than they should be

Aircraft flying where they shouldn’t be flying

Aircraft having their landing gear down

Aircraft numbers increasing without being able to have a say

Aircraft are flying in different places and no one told me

Flights late at night

Flights early in the morning

Helicopter noise at unsociable hours

Helicopter noise in general

My local airport isn’t doing enough to manage noise

No organisation listening to community concerns

Nobody represents my interests to my local airport

Noise from aircraft when they are on the ground

Noise from light aircraft

Noise from small airfields

Not being given enough information about aircraft noise when I moved house

Stopping noise in tranquil areas (like National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

The information my local airport provides is difficult to understand

The tone of noise from particular aircraft (for instance engine whine or buzz)

There is no national planning policy that guides against new homes being built under flight paths

Other (please describe below)

 
 
 

6. Thinking of where you live now, how long have you been annoyed by aviation noise?

7. Which of these organisations would you expect to provide information relating to aviation noise? Select all that apply.

8. Which of these organisations would you expect to act to reduce aviation noise? Select all that apply.

9. Is there anything else you would like to say about aircraft noise?

Almost Done…

You are about to submit your response. By clicking ‘Submit Response’ you give us permission to analyse and include your response in our results. After you click Submit, you will no longer be able to go back and change any of your answers.

If you provide an email address you will be sent a receipt and a link to a PDF copy of your response.

,
,
,


One local group commented: 

As noise is considered as an average and that this deviates from the reality of how residents experience noise. Any noise limit based on averages gives rise to an exponential increase in number of flights (which we would notice) for every small decrease in decibels (which we would not notice).
A reputable acoustics consultant stated: d that: “If all aircraft using a particular airport were 3 dB less noisy, the number of movements could be doubled and the same noise contour area achieved […] It is highly likely that those living nearby would not perceive the tiny noise reduction per plane, but would definitely notice the doubling of movements and be adversely affected by it.”
and

It is important to fill in the “Other” boxes, and make the point that there may be a need for an independent body, which is capable of taking into consideration noise generated by an accumulation of both local air traffic, for the nearby airport as well as the impact of traffic using another airport further away, which may also generate noise for  your area – or affect the local flight paths.

Many areas are not included in an airport’s their “noise contours” but experience serious disturbance nonetheless.

.

.

 

Read more »

Paris aircraft noise pollution: 17 municipalities join in the legal fight to get noise reduced

Seventeen municipalities in Ile-de-France, near Paris, are joining the appeal, against aircraft noise, before the Council of State filed by a group of associations.Conscious of the health impact of airborne noise on their fellow citizens, they support legal action and want the application of a European regulation on sound protection around airports. The 17 communes have joined the legal action taken in April by the “Association of Defense of Val-d’Oise against the air noise nuisances” (Advocnar) and the collective “Alert nuisances aerial” (ANA).  It plans to put in place Environmental Noise Prevention Plans (EFPPs) to limit the impact of air traffic on the population.  On April 24, 2017 ADVOCNAR etc applied to the Conseil d’Etat for France to comply with European law concerning the reduction of noise related to air traffic around Orly airports, Roissy Charles-de -Gaulle and Le Bourget. They say the Ile-de-France is a region 10 times more populated than all other metropolitan areas in France, and concentrates half of the national air traffic. The European directive 2002/49 / CE needs the French State to engage in a real step of sustainable development, protecting the health and the sleep of the overflown populations, without calling into question the economic benefits of the presence of the 3 main Parisian airports.
.

 

Translations below are from Google Translate — apologies for any errors…. or weird wording!

Orly: Villeneuve-le-Roi, Sucy and Saint-Maur join the appeal against the airport

> Ile-de-France & Oise > Val-de-Marne > Villeneuve-le-Roi

November 20, 2017 (Le Parisien)

The three municipalities have joined the appeal filed by associations against the density of traffic of the three airports in the Paris region.

It was “obvious” that they would join the process. “We are particularly attentive to the rights of residents and we support associations,” says Didier Gonzales, Mayor (LR) of Villeneuve-le-Roi.

Of the 17 cities that lodge appeals for voluntary intervention with the State Council against Paris airports , three come from Val-de-Marne: Villeneuve-le-Roi, Saint-Maur-des-Fossés and Sucy-en Brie.

Three cities that suffer particularly from the development of the airport of Orly, and fear that it will be done at the expense of the tranquility of residents living nearby.

“The airport continues to grow with new lines, says Sylvain Berrios, Mayor (LR) of Saint-Maur. It is not only the economic pole that is developing, but the air activity. Orly airport must realize that it is in urban areas and that it can only continue to grow while respecting the commitments of the State.

“It’s not a question of comfort, says Didier Gonzales, it’s the health of local residents that is at stake. And there is also a strong economic problem, because when we lose inhabitants, we also lose resources” .

Original French at

http://www.leparisien.fr/villeneuve-le-roi-94290/orly-villeneuve-le-roi-sucy-et-saint-maur-montent-au-creneau-contre-l-aeroport-20-11-2017-7404768.php#xtor=AD-1481423554

.
.

 

Aircraft noise pollution: 17 French municipalities join in the legal fight of associations

> Ile-de-France & Oise > Val-d’Oise |

By Thibault Chaffotte (Le Parisien)

November 20, 2017

Seventeen municipalities in Ile-de-France are joining the appeal before the Council of State filed by a group of associations.

The fight against air pollution in the Ile-de-France is reinforced a little more. The group of associations which has filed an appeal before the Council of State to request the application of a European regulation on sound protection around airports announces have rallied 17 communes Ile-de-France to this action . The latter have lodged appeals in voluntary intervention, which means that they join the legal action taken in April by the Association of Defense of Val-d’Oise against the nuisances air (Advocnar) and the collective Alert nuisances aerial (ANA).

“We have increased contact with elected officials to get their support, says Luc Offenstein, president of the ANA. We have been working with them for a long time. “. If this does not change the nature of the procedure, this gesture reinforces the symbolic weight of this approach. “It shows the inadequacy of the measures currently in place,” says Louis Cofflard, the association’s lawyer.

Gérard Bouthier, president of the Environmental Vigilance Association of Val de l’Yerres, Luc Offenstein, president of the group Alert air nuisances, and Louis Cofflard (from left to right), their lawyer, when filing the appeal before the Council of State. LP / TC

April, the latter appealed to the Council of State to request the application of the European directive n ° 2002/49 / CE. It plans to put in place Environmental Noise Prevention Plans (EFPPs) to limit the impact of air traffic on the population. However, the associations argue that the Roissy and Orly PPBEs are insufficient and do not correspond to the terms of the directive . As for that of Le Bourget, it has never been set

By joining this action, municipalities also participate in court fees, according to a scale established according to the size of the communities, which ranges from € 250 to € 1,000. The collective of associations hopes that other municipalities will agree to join this fight. He intends to approach the intermunicipalities soon.

“We hope that it improves things”
> FREDERIC BOURDIN, Mayor of Domont

The group of associations that filed an appeal to the Council of State about air pollution could already count on the support of two Val-d’Osois municipalities: Saint-Prix and Gonesse. Now 17 municipalities in the Paris region support this action, including Cormeilles-en-Parisis, Domont, Eaubonne, Frette-sur-Seine and Plessis-Bouchard.

“We have always supported the Advocnar [Val-d’Oise Defense Association against air pollution],” said Maurice Chevigny (SE), Mayor of Frette-sur-Seine. It hopes that the implementation of a better Environmental Prevention Plan (PPBE) in line with the EU Regulation will lead to the adoption of measures to reduce the impact on air traffic for the populations: curfew at night, equipment to reduce the hissing of the reactors, modification of aircraft approach angles, etc. “There have been some improvements but there is still a lot to do,” he said.

Frédéric Bourdin, Mayor (LR) of Domont, is in the same process. “We hope that this approach improves things, but what would be good is also to fight against degassing. Hundreds of liters of kerosene are squeezed every time in nature. Whatever the type of nuisance, Val-d’Oise is at the forefront of air pollution. “Roissy is the number one airport in Europe in terms of number of flights, first in number of night flights and second in impacted population,” said Patrick Kruissel, vice president of Advocnar. He points out the shortcomings of Roissy’s PPBE. “There are 250,000 noise people in the perimeter of the airport. The measures planned for the moment reduce the nuisance than for 1% of them “.

Original French at

http://www.leparisien.fr/val-d-oise-95/nuisances-aeriennes-17-villes-s-associent-au-combat-juridique-des-associations-20-11-2017-7404540.php

.

.


Saint-Prix, le 17 novembre 2017

Communiqué de presse  (Press Release)

Bruit autour des aéroports franciliens :

17 communes déposent des recours en intervention volontaire auprès du Conseil d’Etat

La France ne respecte pas la directive européenne n° 2002/49/CE, qui exige des états membres la mise en place d’une cartographie des nuisances sonores et des plans d’action (PPBE) pour limiter le bruit dans les zones dépassant les valeurs limites, en particulier pour les aéroports de plus de 50 000 mouvements.

Le 24 avril 2017, ADVOCNAR, ANA, élus et associations requérants1 ont saisi le Conseil d’Etat pour que la France se conforme au droit européen, concernant la réduction du bruit lié au trafic aérien autour des aéroports d’Orly, Roissy Charles-de-Gaulle et Le Bourget.

[In English: On April 24, 2017, ADVOCNAR, ANA, elected and applicant associations applied to the Conseil d’Etat for France to comply with European law concerning the reduction of noise related to air traffic around Orly airports, Roissy Charles-de -Gaulle and Le Bourget.]

Ils demandent:

 La transcription complète de la directive européenne n°2002/49/CE dans la législation française

 L’annulation des PPBE de Roissy CdG et d’Orly, non conformes à la directive

 L’adoption d’un PPBE conforme à la directive pour Roissy CDG et Le Bourget

 La mise en révision sans délai du PPBE d’Orly, en conformité avec la directive

Aujourd’hui, 17 communes d’Ile-de-France2 déposent des recours en intervention volontaire auprès du Conseil d’Etat. Conscientes de l’impact sanitaire du bruit aérien sur leurs concitoyens, elles soutiennent l’action juridique.

[In English: Today, 17 municipalities of Ile-de-France2 file appeals in voluntary intervention with the Council of State. Conscious of the health impact of airborne noise on their fellow citizens, they support legal action.]

L’Ile-de-France est une région 10 fois plus peuplée que l’ensemble des autres régions métropolitaines et concentre la moitié du trafic aérien national. La directive européenne n° 2002/49/CE est l’occasion pour l’Etat français de s’engager dans une véritable démarche de développement durable, protégeant la santé et le sommeil des populations survolées, sans remettre en cause les bénéfices économiques de la présence des 3 principales plates-formes franciliennes (Roissy CdG, Orly et Le Bourget). Répondre aux exigences de cette directive consiste en la mise en œuvre des solutions, qui sur d’autres grands aéroports ont prouvé leur faisabilité technique et économique, combinée à une forte efficacité environnementale.

[In English: Ile-de-France is a region 10 times more populated than all other metropolitan areas and concentrates half of the national air traffic. The European directive n ° 2002/49 / CE is the occasion for the French State to engage in a real step of sustainable development, protecting the health and the sleep of the overflown populations, without calling into question the economic benefits of the presence of the 3 main Parisian platforms (Roissy CdG, Orly and Le Bourget). Meeting the requirements of this directive is the implementation of solutions, which at other major airports have proven their technical and economic feasibility, combined with high environmental efficiency.]


Contacts :

Luc Offenstein Patric Kruissel Maître Louis Cofflard (avocat des requérants)

/.

1 Action conjointe menée par : Associations et collectifs ADVOCNAR – ANA – CIRENA – CSNA – DRAPO – ESSONNE NATURE ENVIRONNEMENT – LES AMIS DE LA TERRE Val d’Oise – OYE 349 – FNE-IDF – MNLE 93 – QVLB – SOS Vallée de Montmorency – UFCNA – VILLE & AÉROPORT Communes de GONESSE et SAINT-PRIX

2. Communes d’ANDILLY, COMPANS, CORMEILLES-EN-PARISIS, DOMONT, EAUBONNE, LA FRETTE-SUR-SEINE, LE PLESSIS-BOUCHARD, LINAS, MONTGERON, SAINT-MAUR-DES-FOSSÉS, SANNOIS, STAINS, SUCY-EN-BRIE, TAVERNY, VARENNES-JARCY, VILLENEUVE-LE-ROI, YERRES

http://www.advocnar.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-17-CP-recours-en-Intervention-Volontaire-Conseil-dEtat-nuisances-aeriennes-bruit-V2.pdf

.

.

 

Read more »