Gatwick, Heathrow and London City Airport campaigns come together to oppose airspace change

16.6.2015 a response was received. See below.

Over the past year or more, changes to flight paths and airspace being introduced in the UK, and these have caused considerable anger and upset among the many communities – and tens of thousands of people – now affected. Many new groups sprang up, in response to the greatly increased levels of aircraft noise people were being exposed to. Now these flight path groups at Gatwick, Heathrow and London City airports have joined forces and got together, to show the DfT, the Government, the CAA and NATS the anger of residents across the UK to these airspace changes. They have signed a joint letter, being delivered to the Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin, demanding that Government policy should be changed to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on residents. They also demand that the right of people to health, well-being and family life should be prioritised by Ministers over the drive of airlines, airports and aviation industry for greater profits. They are asking that Government should consider legislation to govern and control the usage of airspace. Also that the CAA gives true consideration to residents who are affected, which is not the current situation. 
.

 

rsz_handing_in_flight_path_letter_at_dft

Response from Robert Goodwill

16.6.2015 Letter from Robert Goodwill


Gatwick, Heathrow and London City Airport campaigns come together to oppose airspace change

1.6.2015 (From Gatwick, Heathrow and London City groups)

The letter was handed in to the Department for Transport at 11am on 1st June, at 3 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 4DR

The letter is copied below.

The groups are working together, in their determination to get changes to the manner in which airspace changes are introduced and the increasing noise burden being suffered by people who previously were only overflown to a small extent.

  • This is a first – City, Gatwick and Heathrow Airport action groups come together to oppose airspace changes that are affecting tens of thousands of people lives.
  • The joint letter shows the Department for Transport, the Government, Civil Aviation Authority and NATS the anger of residents across the UK to airspace changes.
  • The letter demands that Government policy be changed to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on residents and that the right of people to health, well-being and family life be prioritised by Ministers over the desire of airlines, airports and aviation industry for greater profits.
  • The groups ask Government to consider legislation that governs and controls NATS’ usage of airspace, demanding that the CAA gives true consideration of residents affected, which is not what happens at present.

The airspace changes are part of a Europe-wide programme to make more effective use of airspace and are now impacting the whole of the UK.  They are designed to enable airlines to save fuel, to allow aircraft to land at and depart from airports more efficiently but give little, if any, consideration to the impact the changes have, and will have, on communities.  In the UK Gatwick and London City have been earmarked as first in line for the changes.  Heathrow is expected to have its changes in place by 2019 with national changes by 2020.

Residents fear that the changes will result in excessive concentration of aircraft along selected routes with no consideration for the impact the changes have on health and wellbeing of residents.

Brendon Sewill Chairman of GACC said:

“We can not see how any airport expansion can go forward with the anger that is being vented at all airport operators due to the current airspace changes.  All the protest groups coming together should send a clear message to the Government that residents are fed up with being ignored and that they will not be disregarded.”

Helen Hansen of Heathrow community group CAIAN, (Communities Against Increased Aircraft Noise) said:

“Many of us affected by Heathrow have already had our lives turned upside down by new flight procedures introduced without consultation, exposing us to periods of over 17 hours a day of unrelenting and intolerable concentrated flight noise.  It’s time to put human health and wellbeing before profits for airlines and airports, by instituting proper regulatory safeguards to minimise aircraft noise over heavily populated areas.”

The joint statement of 6 pages long will be handed to the Department for Transport with a copy being handed direct to the Prime Minister.

This joint statement has the endorsement of groups representing communities of Kent, Mid Sussex, East Sussex, West Sussex and Surrey as well as London boroughs.

.

Names of signatories and groups

Gatwick Airport –

Brendon Sewill, for  GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) www.gacc.org.uk

Sally Pavey, for CAGNE  (Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions) www.cagne.org

Ian Hare, for PAGNE  (Pulborough Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions)

Dominic Nevill, for ESCCAN  (East Sussex Communities for the Control of Air Noise)

Martin Barraud, for  GON (Gatwick Obviously Not) www.gatwickobviouslynot.org

Simon Byerley, for CAGNE EAST  www.cagne.east.org

Mike Ward, for Plane Wrong    www.planewrong.co.uk

Langton Green Village Society

.

Heathrow Airport –

John Stewart, for HACAN   www.hacan.org.uk

Robert Beere, for Aircraft Noise Lightwater    www.aircraftnoiselightwater.co.uk (representing Lightwater, Bagshot and Windlesham in Surrey Heath)

Natasha Fletcher, for Teddington Action Group  http://www.teddingtonactiongroup.com/ (covering TW11, TW12, TW1, TW2)

Helen Hansen-Hjul, for CAIAN (Communities Against Increased Aircraft Noise (representing newly affected areas of West Heathrow inc Berkshire, Surrey, Oxon)

Kate Mann, for  PlaneDAFT – Defending Ascot’s Future Today

.

London City Airport –

HACAN East – people under the London City Airport flight paths

Momentum – community organisation based in the Royal Docks

 


 

Heathrow area Community group’s spokespeople: 

Helen Hansen: 07947 871292

Stephen Clark 07831 775915

 

Gatwick are spokesperson

Sally Pavey 07831 632537/ sallypavey@yahoo.com




The joint letter:

1st June 2015

 

To:
The Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP
Secretary of State for Transport
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 4DR
Dear Secretary of State

Congratulations on your reappointment.

We are writing to you as representatives of many thousands of people impacted, often
profoundly, by noise from aircraft using Gatwick, Heathrow and London City airports.
We believe current airspace management and air traffic control arrangements are
unacceptable and undemocratic; in our view they amount to a serious failure of regulation
and an abuse of government policy. Our communities are deeply frustrated by what has
happened to them; they feel ignored, angry and persecuted. We have collectively lost
confidence in the ability or willingness of the aviation sector – both regulators and businesses
– to address the issues that impact us.

But we believe these issues can be addressed, using the technology now available, if the
parties were brought together and required to discuss, develop and implement solutions.
We are not NIMBYs. We fully recognise the benefits that the aviation industry brings but a
key theme of this letter is that fairness must be paramount in deciding on flight paths, with
proper account being taken of communities’ views.

We hope you will work with us to explore and put in place a new set of regulatory and
operational arrangements designed to reduce, minimise and fairly distribute aircraft noise
(fully dispersed within existing NPRs in the case of departures). This has, we believe, the
potential to achieve a major and badly needed step forward in responsible, community
friendly, aviation policy. We set out, later in this letter, specific policy and process proposals;
we would welcome an opportunity to discuss these with you and your officials.

We emphasise that the issues raised and proposals in this letter relate solely to the current
operations of Heathrow, Gatwick and London City airports; we have not sought to address
the creation of additional runway capacity being considered by the Airports Commission,
which would raise further profound issues for our communities.

Current policy and regulation

Current airspace management policies, and the associated regulatory arrangements, are
complex, multi-faceted and highly technical. They are barely penetrable by lay people
impacted on the ground, like most of us. To some extent this may be inevitable. But it has
contributed to an environment where consultation and communication with communities,
where it takes place at all, is not fit for purpose. This was widely acknowledged by Ministers
and MPs in the last Parliament, and should be addressed; we return to this fundamental
point below.

It is clear that some “airspace changes”, such as in the make-up and classification of
controlled airspace, require the consent of the CAA and are subject to a change process and
consultation. But the CAA has taken the view that other changes, such as the routing of
aircraft through blocks of airspace by air traffic controllers, do not require consultation or
consent.

These arrangements make no sense to our communities: consultation is required for
changes that have little impact on the ground, such as to standard arrival routes to
nominated holds all of which are at over 7000 AMSL; but no consultation is apparently
required, and the CAA takes no interest, where a permanent vectoring procedure is altered,
below 4000ft, however significant the impact on communities, tranquillity, health or property
values. The CAA is patently failing to “play an active role” in “balancing the interests of
local communities and relevant stakeholders with those of the aviation industry” that your
Department’s 2014 Environmental Guidance expects it to. It is particularly failing to
implement the aspects of your Guidance which require the noise impact of aircraft and the
number of people on the ground significantly affected by it to be the environmental priority
from the ground to 4,000 feet (amsl). At Heathrow, for example, communities previously
unaffected by aviation noise are now suffering up to 17 hours of unremitting departure
noise daily, without consultation, to achieve marginal gains in fuel and emissions.

Airports and air traffic controllers have taken advantage of this position to change vectoring
practices and narrow the swathe over which arriving aircraft reach their final approach, using
or in preparation for the use of Precision Navigation Technology (PBN). This will clearly
benefit the aviation industry. It will enable airlines to save fuel and allow more aircraft to use
airports increasing their revenue or, in the case of Heathrow where there is an annual
movement cap, help it to operate with more resilience. But they have taken no account, and
are not required to take account, of the significant increase in noise for those under the new
routes, who suffer numerous consequential effects including on health and asset values.

This is wholly uncontrolled behaviour, by unaccountable monopoly businesses; a clear case
of regulatory failure that has led to an unacceptable balance between the commercial
interests of the aviation sector and its customers and those of local communities. Gains for
the industry, which are frequently marginal and unproven, should not be at the expense of
the quality of life of local people. This complete absence of proportionality would be
unthinkable in any other part of the economy and should not be tolerated in the aviation
sector no matter how distinctive and valuable it is.

We would welcome your lead in addressing this failure. One of our organisations has
recently initiated Judicial Review proceedings against the CAA on this point. We hope the
JR will establish that the position the CAA has adopted is both illogical and contrary to the
purpose and letter of the Directives issued to it. But it should not be necessary for our
communities to resort to expensive JR action to force a regulator, and indeed the
government, to take proper account of their legitimate interests and reasonable
expectations.

More broadly the flight path changes introduced recently by air traffic controllers and airports
fly in the face of the Government’s long established policy “to limit and, where possible,
reduce the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise”.

There are two issues here. First, the policy itself, while at first glance reasonable, is
insufficiently specific and facilitates abuse. It is clearly a good thing to reduce the number of
people significantly affected by aircraft noise if that can be done without materially adversely
impacting others. It is quite another thing to create persecuted noise ghettos, and no British
Government should allow itself to be associated with such a policy no matter how politically
attractive. It is simply not consistent with core British values

Secondly, the changes that have been made, in our view, have clearly increased the number
of people significantly affected by aircraft noise. At Gatwick, for example, aircraft arrivals
that were previously dispersed over a 5nm swathe are now concentrated in a 2nm wide
corridor. Aircraft now meet the ILS between 10-12nm where previously it was 7-12nm; a
reduction of 60%. The consequence is that we have moved from a position where many
people were somewhat impacted by aircraft arrival noise (but few were significantly
impacted) to one where many are significantly impacted by a constant stream of aircraft,
hour after hour, day after day. A new class of significantly affected people has been
created, in the name of the government’s policy, with no consultation or redress.

Taken together, these factors have led to a position where there is no trust – and an
increasing standoff – between airports and air traffic control organisations on the one hand
and overflown communities on the other, with the regulator standing to one side unwilling or
unable to act. In the past few months alone the record number of public complaints has
forced both Heathrow and Gatwick to cancel trials or defer proposed changes in airspace
usage, a position that is likely to be replicated nationwide, unless the policy is changed, as
PBN is trialled and introduced. This is clearly not an environment that will support good
policy making, let alone deliverable decisions on future airport capacity. The government
and its regulator need to step in, review the policy and its implementation and work with
communities to, as the Department’s 2014 Guidance to the CAA says, “consider new and
innovative approaches to regulation and [work with] the industry to innovate in noise
management techniques”. There is no sign that this is happening currently.

Our proposals

We propose the set of measures described below. Taken together we believe these would
send a powerful signal to our communities and others impacted by aircraft noise that the
government recognises their concerns and is willing to work with them to find mutually
acceptable solutions. This would, in our view, represent a very significant step forward in
aviation policy.

1. Announce that the government will seek to ensure, if necessary through new
legislation or Directions, that: aircraft noise will be progressively and materially
reduced; noise impacts will be dispersed and minimised (within existing NPRs in the
case of departures) and meaningful public consultations will be undertaken at all times
including in relation to any changes within NPRs that have been introduced since 2011
that impact communities.

2. As a specific component of 1 above, direct the CAA urgently to research and trial the
potential for using PBN technology to achieve the maximum dispersal of flight
approach paths (up to a joining point of 3 miles from the airport) without using merge
points and the maximum dispersal of flight departure paths within Noise Preferential
Routes, with the full involvement of impacted communities.

3. Pending the implementation of 1 and 2 above, require the industry to reverse all
vectoring and other trials carried out since 2011 and return flight paths to their pre
2011 positions and status and to reverse the arbitrary 10 nautical mile minimum joining
point procedure for arrivals.

4. Ensure that the industry uses PBN to achieve the greatest possible safe height with
smooth Continual Descent Approach / Continual Ascent Departure at all times, and
require the CAA to police this and report on it periodically.

5. Amend your Department’s Guidance to the CAA to make clear that noise and noise
shadow minimisation is the primary environmental consideration in the design of all
arrival and departure routes up to at least 6,000 feet (amsl) (currently 4,000 feet amsl),
and require it to report periodically on its implementation of this Guidance.

6. Review regulatory and contractual arrangements in the aviation sector, particularly
those involving airports and air traffic control organisations, to ensure that they contain
appropriate incentives to reduce and disperse noise on the basis set out above, with
meaningful financial and other licence sanctions where this is not achieved.

7. Require airlines immediately to address the debilitating cavity whine caused by the
Airbus A320 family of aircraft. This issue is well understood, and there is an easy and
affordable solution already being deployed by other airports and airlines including
Lufthansa. The UK should be a leader in this area not one of the last to act.

8. Develop, launch and generously fund a community-oriented programme intended to
achieve radical change in the culture of the aviation industry towards the noise (and
other environmental damage) it creates and the outcomes it achieves. This could, for
example, play a key role in: far more intensive noise monitoring; honest, audited,
complaint reporting; the development and dissemination of best practice noise
management amongst airlines; and accelerated research into options that would keep
aircraft higher for longer, such as steeper ascent and descent paths.

We very much hope you will work with us to achieve the significant change needed properly
to balance the interests of impacted communities, the aviation industry and those who use
its services, through the actions proposed above. We would welcome the opportunity to
discuss our proposals with you.

We have copied this letter to the Prime Minister and the Chair of the CAA.

Yours faithfully

.

Names of signatories and groups

For the Gatwick Airport area –

Brendon Sewill, for  GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) www.gacc.org.uk

Sally Pavey, for CAGNE  (Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions) www.cagne.org

Ian Hare, for PAGNE  (Pulborough Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions)

Dominic Nevill, for ESCCAN  (East Sussex Communities for the Control of Air Noise)

Martin Barraud, for  GON (Gatwick Obviously Not) www.gatwickobviouslynot.org

Simon Byerley, for CAGNE EAST  www.cagne.east.org

Mike Ward, for Plane Wrong    www.planewrong.co.uk

Langton Green Village Society

.

For the Heathrow Airport area –

John Stewart, for HACAN   www.hacan.org.uk

Robert Beere, for Aircraft Noise Lightwater    www.aircraftnoiselightwater.co.uk (representing Lightwater, Bagshot and Windlesham in Surrey Heath)

Natasha Fletcher, for Teddington Action Group  http://www.teddingtonactiongroup.com/ (covering TW11, TW12, TW1, TW2)

Helen Hansen-Hjul, for CAIAN (Communities Against Increased Aircraft Noise (representing newly affected areas of West Heathrow inc Berkshire, Surrey, Oxon)

Kate Mann, for  PlaneDAFT – Defending Ascot’s Future Today

.

For the London City Airport area –

HACAN East – people under the London City Airport flight paths

Momentum – community organisation based in the Royal Docks

.

.


 

The FT reported the story, saying:

Heathrow and Gatwick campaigners join forces over aircraft noise

By Peggy Hollinger, Industry Editor (FT)

1.6.2015
Protesters against expansion at Heathrow and Gatwick airports have come together for the first time to demand changes in aviation policy, just weeks before a three-year review of new runway capacity for the south-east of England delivers its verdict.

Members of a dozen leading protest groups against expansion of airports in the south-east of England are calling on the Department for Transport to toughen up regulation of air traffic control in a bid to reduce aircraft noise, and to reverse new flight paths introduced as part of a European initiative to make better use of airspace, but which have concentrated aircraft.

The route changes – which mean aircraft fly in and out on narrower corridors — have “clearly increased the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise,” the campaign groups say in a letter to be delivered to the transport minister on Monday and copied to the prime minister. “A new class of significantly affected people has been created, in the name of the government’s policy, with no consultation or redress.”

The complaint is timed to maximise pressure on the government as it prepares for the advice of the Airports Commission, set up three years ago to recommend the best choice for airport expansion. The commission, led by Sir Howard Davies, is expected to deliver its finding by the end of June. A last-minute public consultation on the environmental impact of expansion — called three weeks ago to minimise the chances of a legal challenge — concluded on Friday.

The government has pledged to consider the commission’s recommendation, although it has stopped short of promising to implement the findings. The issue is politically charged with a number of marginal seats sitting under the Heathrow flight path, while business is heavily in favour of expansion. Gatwick has vocal opponents as well, making the choice a difficult one for a government with a slim majority.

“We cannot see how any airport expansion can go forward with the anger that is being vented at all airport operators due to the current airspace changes,” said Brendon Sewill, chairman of Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign. “All the protest groups coming together should send a clear message to the government that residents are fed up with being ignored and that they will not be disregarded.”

Helen Hansen of the Anti-Heathrow group, Communities Against Increased Aircraft Noise, said: “It’s time to put human health and wellbeing before profits for airlines and airports, by instituting proper regulatory safeguards to minimise aircraft noise over heavily populated areas.”

The battle between Heathrow and Gatwick over which airport will be allowed to expand has become increasingly heated. Gatwick’s management suggested last week it could take legal action if Heathrow was chosen, because certain areas leading into the airport are already in breach of EU environmental limits on pollution.

Heathrow has insisted that it would only expand within EU air quality limits and that the breaches are not because of airport traffic but part of a wider problem with pollution faced in London.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/872baf92-07cc-11e5-9579-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3bmXr93np

.

.


 

Travel Weekly said:

Action groups slam airspace management and air traffic control arrangements

Airspace management and air traffic control arrangements are unacceptable and undemocratic, a collective of action groups covering London City airport, Gatwick and Heathrow claim.

They have come together for the first time today to lobby the Department for Transport in opposition to airspace changes they say are affecting tens of thousands of people’s lives.

They are demanding that government policy be changed to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on residents.

The new protest comes ahead of the Airports Commission announcing which of three shortlisted options should be adopted for airport expansion in the southeast of England.

The campaign groups fear that a Europe-wide programme to make more effective use of airspace will result in excessive concentration of aircraft along selected routes with no consideration for the impact the changes have on health and wellbeing of residents.

Gatwick and London City have been earmarked as first in line for the changes. Heathrow is expected to have its changes in place by 2019 with the rest of the country by 2020.

Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign chairman, Brendon Sewill, said: “We can not see how any airport expansion can go forward with the anger that is being vented at all airport operators due to the current airspace changes.

“All the protest groups coming together should send a clear message to the government that residents are fed up with being ignored and that they will not be disregarded.”

Helen Hansen, of Heathrow community group Communities Against Increased Aircraft Noise, added: “Many of us affected by Heathrow have already had our lives turned upside down by new flight procedures introduced without consultation, exposing us to periods of over 17 hours a day of unrelenting and intolerable concentrated flight noise.

“It’s time to put human health and wellbeing before profits for airlines and airports, by instituting proper regulatory safeguards to minimise aircraft noise over heavily populated areas.”

http://travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2015/06/01/54365/action+groups+slam+airspace+management+and+air+traffic+control+arrangements.html

.


The Evening Standard said:

 

Aircraft noise groups accuse industry of creating ‘ghettos’ in the South-East

By NICHOLAS CECIL

The aviation industry was accused today of creating “noise ghettos” blighting communities in the South-East.

They called for new laws governing and controlling the usage of airspace by Nats, the national air traffic control agency, and requiring the Civil Aviation Authority to give “true consideration” to local residents affected by noise, which they claimed is currently not the case.

Brendon Sewill, chairman of Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign, said: “All the protest groups coming together should send a clear message to the Government that residents are fed up with being ignored and that they will not be disregarded.”

With the Airports Commission due to deliver its final report on airport expansion within weeks, Mr Sewill said he could not see how new runways could be built given the “anger that is being vented at all airport operators due to the current airspace changes”.

Helen Hansen of Heathrow community group Caian — Communities Against Increased Aircraft Noise — added: “It’s time to put human health and well-being before profits for airlines and airports, by instituting proper regulatory safeguards to minimise aircraft noise over heavily populated areas.”

Nats said that all airspace developments associated with the UK’s Future Airspace Strategy are carried out subject to the requirements of the Civil Aviation Authority’s Directorate of Airspace Policy’s airspace change proposal process, which sets out guidance for consultation on proposed alterations.

“We are committed to working with airport and airline customers and communities to seek innovative solutions to noise issues around airports,” it added.

A spokeswoman for Heathrow said: “We recognise that noise can be an issue for communities under flight paths, and earlier this year established a Heathrow Community Noise Forum to examine the steps that can be taken to improve transparency and reduce noise impacts.”

She added that the airport had launched initiatives to address noise concerns including steeper landing descents, encouraging airlines to fix the “whine” from A320 passenger jets, and incentivising airlines to use their cleanest, quietest aircraft.

Gatwick said it had adopted “industry-leading approaches” to limit noise impact but added that it “welcomed discussions on how this process can be further improved”.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/aircraft-noise-groups-accuse-industry-of-creating-ghettos-in-the-southeast-10289008.html

.

.And the story was featured on the BBC news on TV.