Night Flights At Gatwick

If you are unhappy about night flights in/out of Gatwick you might like to sign the petition on the government website. Once 10,000 “signatures” have been obtained the government are obliged to respond – quite a way to go.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/106462 (There are only 2,188 signatures currently)

Jane Major

 

 

Gatwick Consultation – Gatwick Airport Second Runway

The Parish Council hopes that everyone will find the time to respond to the Consultation Document -‘Gatwick Airport Second Runway’, and that they will also encourage friends and neighbours to respond.

A second runway at Gatwick would devastate this area as we know it today and would leave very little open countryside between here and Dorking.

The following notes are taken from a meeting of the Council earlier in November and will form the basis of the Parish Council response to be submitted at the end of January 201 S. Please refer to the Parish Council website at www.capel-pc.gov.uk for further documents which will be published in early January (GACC response) and Mole Valley District Council’s response around January 22nd. Responding to Consultation Document on Gatwick Airport Second Runway

Document available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/airports-commissions-publishes-consultation-on-shortlisted-options-for-a-new-runway

  1. Respond to the Question: Must address the Q. but possible to add comments
  2. Give a clear NO to Gatwtck Airport option
  3. Clear YES to H’row but to not argue which of H/row options ~ let others decide.
  4. Focus on airport option, not other issues.
  5. Be proactive and take a positive view

Gatwick Masterplan does not show the Crawley North East Sector -1,900 houses for 6,000 people plus schools, other employment areas and open spaces within 600m of the proposed runway. Development is already implemented.

Para.3.5 pg.37 -total of 168 residential properties He within airport land take and are likely to need to be demolished …..

Loss of GBelt land … Redhill Aerodrome court decision Oct 2014 GB loss not supported Rara.3.9 pg 38 ‘requirement’ …. Will lead to impact on rural road network

Para. 3.18 pgA I -competition .. why should we be part of a process to enhance competition. Para.3.20 pg 41 -Cargo Growth to 1m metric tons

Employment/housing/transport

GAL (Gatwick Airport Ltd) say 122,000 new jobs -this equates to 30,000+ new homes + new homes in the countryside

HEATHROW can meet this provision from brown field sites (a big plus for H/R) HEATHROW links-benefits:

  • Cross rail
  • HR2
  • Motorway network
  • Links from regional airports
  • National Rail network
  • Minimal impact on rural roads

Gatwick requires enhancements to: M23/M2S

North to London is single carriageway after M23/25 junction & cannot be improved Upgrade rail links

Not benefitting from National networks

Not realistic

Environment : Air quality: Noise : Impact on living conditions of the community.

Impact on schools

Minimal impact from HEATHROW proposals

Regional hubs support HEATHROW : (Aberdeen, Glasgow. Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle) MANCHESTER Airport outraged that there is nothing for the north

Compare Pros and Cons

No legal obligation on GAL to refund Council tax – a false promise and impossible to calculate. Compensation is rubbish.

Gatwick interested in added value in order to dispose of-just for profit Financial viability figures are lacking -they say it is commercially sensitive Add to the issues missing: transparency, implementation, achieving their aims.

Proposals would make Gatwick larger than HEATH ROW

HEATHROW already has better rail and road infrastructure & employment.

Major stacking would occur over Gatwick

GATWICK AIRPORTS LIMITED is highly commercial opportunity, their views are only monetary Protest meeting about PRNAV with planes taking off at 56 second intervals

No space to create more rail or roads at Gatwick

Extending H/row runway is sensible

Many businesses I companies support H/row

Write to other MVDC Councillors + Reigate & Banstead

NB. MVDC RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION NOT PUBLISHED UNTIL 20TH JANUARY 2015 GACC RESPONSE NOT PUBLISHED UNTIL 2ND JANUARY 20’15

Capel Parish Council formal response ready for approval Monday Jan 19th 2015 PC meeting.

In the interim the Parish Council is keen to hear the views of the community. Please let us know what your views are.

Persuade other counties to fight against – approach schools

There are several ways to respond to the Commissions consultation:

  • answer the Commission’s questions via an onHne form;
  • download the question and response form from the website and emailing your responses;
  • print off the question and response form from the website and post in your responses to a freepost address.
  • Email in stand-alone responses;
  • Mail standalone responses to a freepost address

The online form can be accessed at: www.gov.uk/airports-commission. Half completed forms Can be saved and returned to at any point. You may wish to compose answers offline, and then copy and paste them into the form

Responses should be e-mailedto:airports.consultation@systra.com.

Responses should be posted to :-

Airports Commission Consultation

Freepost RTKX-USUC-CXA

PO Box 1492. WOKING. G22 2QR.

The consultation runs until Thursday 3rd February 2015

Gatwick Co-ordination Group

GATWICK CO-ORDINATION GROUP

To:       Parish Council’s in Surrey, Sussex and Kent.

You will be aware from the Press Statement on the 11th June, 2014 that Surrey/Sussex and Kent have formed the Gatwick Co-ordination Group established to represent the serious local concern and objections to the plan for a second runway at Gatwick Airport, which was short-listed by the Davies Commission.

On the 28th July, 2014 Crispin Blunt, who is the Chairman of the Group, wrote to the Leaders of the Local Authorities impacted by the second runway proposal.  A copy of his letter is attached together with the Plan which demonstrates the potential impact brought about by the provision of in Gatwick Airport’s estimation of 122,000 new jobs.

Brendon Sewell, Chairman of GACC and I were invited on to the Group with the specific aim of representing the GACC Members and Parish Councils interests.

I am now writing to you inviting you to confirm your support as Parish Council’s for the opposition to the second Gatwick Runway.

It is clear that the proposed expansion will have a severe and irretrievable impact upon the communities affected and their environment.

Looking at the housing figures alone for the Plan Period up to 2026, and even looking at the strategic housing projections for a period beyond, if regard is had to the 122,000 projected employees who will be attracted to employment at Gatwick, there is no prospect of housing numbers being achieved without severely compromising the Green Belt and the countryside. It is estimated the number of dwellings based upon recognised occupancy figures would be in   the  order  of  52,000 dwellings  requiring a  land take in  excess of  4,000 acres  or  over 1850+ hectares.

By way of example, in Mole Valley District alone 3,700 houses are required up to 2026, of which at least 1,000 will come from locations in the Green Belt.

If you multiply that figure upwards to all of the other authorities, even by assuming that some of the intended Gatwick employees already live within the area, the housing requirements will have a dramatic impact upon the countryside.  In simple terms what is required cannot be absorbed.  The developments will also require community infrastructure including schools and healthcare provision.

While the Local Economic Partnership (LEP) may seek to influence the matter, given its role, even taking into the South East Plan figures (the SEP is no longer in place but its figures are being taken into account as it covers all areas) the Gatwick impact on housing numbers in the region is one we need to focus on.

With the inward/migration of a population, plus highways impact on both the strategic road network and the rural network in planning and environment terms the effect will only be one of harm and devastation which must be resisted.

It is also important to bring into focus the prospect of open space loss.

From the Report ‘Public Parks (HLFT 2014)’ it has been evidenced that 45% of Local Authorities are considering either selling parks and/or green spaces, as well as compromising the Green Belt and the countryside in determining applications to meet the housing need.

With the estimated 34 million users of parks and open spaces the loss would be unacceptable.  The South East must not become Brownfield, its character must remain rural and green.

Traffic impact will also harm areas such as the South Downs National Park and the whole of the North Downs AONB from Guildford in the west to Sevenoaks in the east.

With the high population level in areas just beyond Greater London depending upon the protection of the open spaces and areas in the countryside, amenity is crucial and should form a strong influence as you object to the Gatwick proposal.

In comparison the loss of such areas close to Heathrow (if it is expanded), would not have the same adverse impact.  London’s housing provision, its transport network, including Cross Rail and road transport networks is more able to cope with expansion without that level of environmental impact.

A recent Government Report indicated that Brownfield sites in London are to be prioritised for housing.

The kickback for the local areas beyond the London Boroughs southwards is that from experience we know they will require the benefit of open spaces in Surrey, Kent and beyond.

It is crucial therefore that you agree to support the objections to the Gatwick Second Runway expansion both as individual Parish Council’s and in support of the Gatwick Co-ordination Group which will make representations on your behalf.

You should also lobby your local authority to resist the second runway expansion.  Your elected County and District Councillors should represent your interests.

Having considered all of the issues identified by Crispin Blunt in his communication and those identified in this letter, the confirmation of your support is requested.  It can be sent to me at pgarber@btinternet.com or direct to sherbrookez@parliament.uk

The Commission Consultation is due to commence on 22nd October, 2014 (until mid-January).

We look forward to receiving your confirmation at the earliest opportunity. on behalf of the Parish Council’s you represent.

 

Paul Garber/Capel Parish Council

Member Gatwick Co-ordination Group

22nd September, 2014

Gatwick Noise & Gatwick Flight paths

The Parish Council submitted a formal representation in response to the ‘London Air Space Change – Gatwick Local Area Consultation’ for the Gatwick Airport Flight Paths.

 

Since making the submission it has become clear that the routing which is causing a significant detrimental effect on our lives, was implemented by the Civil Aviation Authority without consultation (in November 2013) applying what is known as Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Standard.

 

In September 2014 the responsible department for UK Airspace Policy at the Department for Transport confirmed in writing that this routing is intended to be applied on a permanent basis following a 1 year trial.

 

One of the requirements of the implementation of what is known as Route 4 was for Gatwick Airport Limited to consult on the change to the associated NPR for the Noise Preferential Route within one year of the guidance published by the civil Aviation Authority, which was issued in January 2014.

 

While Gatwick Airport Limited may be required to consult it has now been evidenced by the Department for Transport that the power to revoke the routing lies wholly within the remit of COA and NATS.

 

In the consultations that are taking place with GAL relating to both the second runway and air space, it is clear that their consultations are ‘not fit for purpose’. As such it is imperative that you should be writing to the Chair of the Civil Aviation Authority, Dame Deirdre Hutton and the Secretary of State for Transport requiring the following courses of action.

 

Firstly, that the CAA revoke the introduction of the route 4 design (the Noise Preferential Route). There is a very sound reason for this. The decision to implement the routing was taken without any form of public consultation. Accordingly, the principal of democratic participation in the decision process has not been applied, a course of action advocated by this Government.

 

Secondly, no regard was had to the consequences of this narrow routing alignment now being adopted by all flights departing to the west out of Gatwick, who then follow the Lambourne route. The routes now being adopted offer minimum relief. Not only is the routing narrow and defined but it is also clear that the height of the aircraft now passing over the villages is significantly lower than that previously adopted.

 

The third point of significant importance is that the argument being promoted by the Gatwick users is that NPR has no flexibility in its application due to the complexities of modern aircraft design, that is clearly nonsense and does not stand up to any argument. The sole reason is one of profitability which, in turn totally disregards and is disingenuous to us as a community.

 

Course of Action

We therefore invite and encourage you to write directly to the Department for Transport and Civil Aviation Authority stressing the importance of the points identified and seeking without the need for us to resort to the Courts for a Statutory Review for the trial period to be one of consultation only and subject to a formal public, democratic consultation prior to any final decision which will impact upon us all for the foreseeable future.

 

The addresses are:-                                                      Mrs Anne Weston, UK Airspace Policy

Dame Deirdre Hutton, Chair,                                       Department for Transport,

Civil Aviation Authority                                                 Zone 1/26, Great Minster House

33 Horseferry Road

London SW1P 4DR

Tel: 0300 330 3000

E:mail anne.weston@dft.gsi.gov.uk

Internet:www.gov.uk/dft

Ref:113319

 

Cc to County Councillor Helyn Clack in your response. E:mail helyn.clack@surreycc.gov.uk

Please respond without delay as the decisions affecting the air space will have a direct affect upon you and your future enjoyment of this idyllic rural community

Just Say No!

The Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, has included Gatwick Airport in its shortlist for potential locations for the next runway in the UK. Gatwick Airport Limited have produced a consultation paper and 17-page questionnaire about their possible runway options. After considerable pressure they have included a ‘None of these options’ check-box buried in section D.

FACTS

Heathrow is the only airport in the London area running near to maximum capacity. Stansted is only at 40% capacity and not due to reach maximum until 2040. The Government should return to the policy of NO MORE RUNWAYS and not yield to pressure from the airlines. The airlines would then begin to develop holiday services from the regional airports and so free up slots at Heathrow and Gatwick for foreign visitors and business travel.

Gatwick is surrounded by Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty which are nationally protected landscapes valued by numerous visitors for their unique flora, fauna, peace and tranquility. The Surrey Hills reach 1000 feet putting them 35% closer to aircraft above. We are plagued by the noise and pollution caused by aircraft taking-off from Gatwick from 6 am to midnight. This can only get considerably worse.

Global Infrastructure Partners have made no secret that they hope to sell their airport share by 2020. Having permission for a second runway will dramatically increase its value.

SUGGESTIONS

that you can use to object to the second runway option at Gatwick

  • New homes required to meet the demands generated by employment for a new runway and expanded facilities. Approximately 30,000 – 45,000 new houses would be needed around the whole county. This was the conclusion of a study jointly commissioned by the West Sussex CC and Gatwick Diamond Initative.
  • Road and rail infrastructure for the airport. Both are already at breaking point and could not stand the extra pressure caused by the increase in travellers and local residents on the rural and motorway networks.
  • The need for extra school places, hospitals and doctors surgeries to be able to cope with the influx of new residents.
  • The routing proposed for aircraft will only worsen already unacceptable noise and pollution levels.
  • The drainage capacity of the river network created by the new developments will impact further on the Mole Valley.
  • It will certainly spoil our Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 

WHAT YOU CAN DO

1). Gatwick Airport Limited are putting on a series of exhibitions about their second runway options. One is in Dorking, please visit and make your objections known.

Date: Thursday 1st May 2014, 4.00 to 7.30pm Venue: Masonic Hall, Dorking Halls, RH4 1SG

If you can not attend there are others at Horley, Charlwood and Horsham.
2). The deadline for submitting your response to the questionnaire is 16th May 2014.

  • Complete GAL’s online response form by going to www.gatwickairport.com/consultation and click ‘have your say’
  • Request a paper response form and post it to: Freepost RSLG ATKL LBAE, Gatwick Runway Consultation, Ipsos MORI – Research Services House, Elmgrove Road, Harrow, HA1 2QG. Capel PC have a limited supply, contact Jackie Coke via email capelpc@btconnect.com or telephone on 01306 712447
  • Email GAL at gatwickrunwayconsultation@ipsos.com
  • Be aware that you must use the channels described here when responding to this consultation. Gatwick Airport Ltd cannot accept responsibility for ensuring that responses sent to any other addresses are included in this consultation

3). LOBBY your local district and county councillors and member of parliament. Details for contacting all are on the Capel Parish Council web-site www.capel-pc.gov.uk

4). REGISTER with GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign)

GACC have been successfully fighting expansion at Gatwick Airport since the 1960’s. They have a team of experts who are running a concise and intelligent press campaign and who will also answer your questions.You can contact GACC on the following:

  • Website: www.gacc.org.uk
  • Post: GACC Campaign Office, Stan Hill, Charlwood, Surrey. RH6 0EP
  • Telephone: 01293 863369
  • Email: gacc@btconnect.com
  • Facebook: www.facebook.com/doyoucaregatwick 

The Gatwick Airport Runway Options Consultation

Gatwick Airport Ltd has produced a 17 page questionnaire about their possible runway options. After considerable pressure they have included a ‘None of these options’ check-box buried in Section D.

Responses to the consultation must be submitted online at www.gatwickairport.com/consultation click ‘have your say’ this takes you to the questionnaire or you can request a paper response form and post it to: Freepost RSLG ATKL LBAE, Gatwick Runway Consultation, Ipsos MORI – Research Services House, Elmgrove Road, Harrow, HA1 1QG. Capel Parish Council has a limit number of parker copies of the form available from Jackie Coke (details below)

  • Making Gatwick larger than Heathrow is currently will endanger the character of Surrey, Sussex and West Kent for ever.
  • Capel Parish Council will be sending out a flyer entitled ‘Just Say no’ to all households in the Parish listing some suggestions that you may like to use to object to a second runway option at Gatwick.
  • The scale and cost of the infrastructure to support an airport potentially larger than Heathrow would mean a massive change in the character of our area, bringing urbanisation of green fields for many miles around.
  • Approximately 40,000 new houses would be needed around the whole country if a new runway is commissioned by the West Sussex County Council and Gatwick Diamond Initiative.
  • Increased risk of local flooding – the drainage capacity of the river network created by the new developments will impact the Mole Valley.
  • Road and rail infrastructure around the airport. Both are already at breaking point and could not stand the extra pressure caused by the increase in travellers and local residents in the rural network.
  • More pollution leading to possible health problems.
  • Our homes, villages and towns blighted by even more aircraft noise and road traffic.
  • The need for extra school places, hospitals, doctors surgeries to be able to cope with the extra residents.
  • The routing proposed for aircraft will only worsen an already unacceptable prevailing noise nuisance.
  • Grid locket motorways (M25 and M23) leading to more rat runs through our villages.
  • It will certainly spoil our Local Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
  • Listed buildings demolished.
  • Economic benefits would be mainly for new workers moving into the area not for existing residents.

The Parish Council urges residents who have not already attended one of the public exhibitions to do so on Thursday May 1st at the Masonic Hall in Dorking Halls between 4pm and 7:30pm so that they can see for themselves the enormity of what is proposed.

Jackie Coke, Clerk to the Council. Tel 01306-712447, Email capelpc@btconnect.com 

 

Gatwick – No Chance To Say No!

Gatwick Airport’s runway consultation, to be launched on 4th april, must be revised to include a box for people to tick if they want no new runway. tHat is the demand made by GACC. If it is not done, GACC say the consultation will be ‘phoney’. It will be a no ‘NO’ vote!

It is understood that, as at present planned, the consultations will provide no simple way for the public to vote for ‘no new runway’. It is obvious say GACC, that the airport will report the results as showing a big majority in favour – just because those against have been given no chance to say so.

‘There is some similarity’, said GACC chairman Brendon Sewill, ‘with the recent poll in Crimea where the public were not given the option of keeping things as they were.’

Another reason why GACC describes the Gatwick consultation as bogus is because the airports Commission has already announced that it will be focussing on the largest option. And the Airport also say that this is their preferred choice’. So the outcome of the consultation is pre-ordained. ‘Whichever option the public choose,; added Sweill, ‘the decision has already been taken.;

By resurrecting the option of a close-parallel runway, the airport is fooling the public into thinking they can support something somewhat less damaging without realising this option has already been ruled out – and that a vote for any option will bed ousted as a vote in favour of a new runway.

Gatwick Expansion

If you are concerned about Gatwick Expansion for lack of infrastructure, environmental, mass housing, loss of historic buildings and economic reasons then please visit, Like and Share the gacc.org.uk Facebook page –

https:llwww.facebook.com/DoYouCareGatwick

Please let residents know of this site or that the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign, an independent group of local people endeavouring to provide the facts. can be found at www.gacc.org.uk.

SALLY PAVEY

Gatwick News – January 2014

Extracts from the GACC Press Release December’ 13

It is no surprise to see that Gatwick has been shortlisted. For the past year GACC has assumed that Gatwick would be included in the short-list of potential sites for a new runway. Now we know that only the so-called ‘wide-spaced’ runway option will be examined -the one that would cause most environmental damage.

Brendon Sewill, chairman of GACC. said: ‘Now the battle is for real. The battle lines are drawn. Now the spotlight is on Gatwick the next step will be to examine the runway plans in detail, and it will be found that Gatwick is an unsuitable site. It is too small, it can never be a four-runway hub, and the ‘constellation-concept (London with three airports each with two runways) is coming unstuck.

Research shows that no other city in the world has two competing hubs.

GACC agrees With Friends of the Earth. Greenpeace, RSPB, WWF and other national environmental organisations that any new runway cannot be reconciled with the UK’s obligations under the Climate Change Act.

We are delighted that our friends at Starrsted have had the threat to their homes and environment lifted. Over the past 10 years they have fought a good fight and won a worthy victory. Now we at Gatwick must do the same. We have done it before in 1970, 1993, and 2003 and we will do it again.

Georgia Wrighton, Director of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (Sussex) said: ‘A second runway at Gatwick, together with sprawling development and urbanisation anticipated on a massive scale. would concrete over cherished open countryside. A heady cocktail of increased flights, HGVs and cars would erode the tranquillity of rural communities, and the health and quality of life of people living under its shadow. The national obsession with expansion will land a disaster on the countryside whilst making runaway climate change unstoppable. Instead of airport expansion we need genuine support for and promotion of alternatives.’

Andy Smith. Director of CPRE Surrey: ‘Surrey is already struggling to cope with being squeezed between Heathrow and Gatwiek airports, with serious environmental impacts in terms of noise and air pollution, both from flights and from road traffic. These problems would become Significantly worse

with a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick, which would undoubtedly make the quality of life worse for communities across Surrey, and would lead to new pressures on the beleaguered Green Belt.’

Sewill added: ‘A new runway used to full capacity would cause substantial environmental damage to all the towns and villages for many miles around Gatwick. In addition to the usual issues of noise, pollution and climate change, one of the emerging concerns is that making Gatwick larger than Heathrow would lead to the urbanisation of much of Surrey and Sussex. Doubling the number of airport jobs plus an influx of new firms (as envisaged by the Gatwick Diamond business association) would mean that a large number of workers would be attracted into the area from the rest of the UK or from the EU, with a need for extra housing equivalent to a new town the size of Crawley.’ The resulting pressure on schools. hospitals, roads and railways, and on the countryside is beginning to worry many councils. Once people recognise that the threat is real, and that a new runway is not just a strip of concrete, there will be tidal wave of opposition.

The Airports Corrmussion will now require al.l the short-listed airports to produce an environmental impact assessment. GACC will be watching like a hawk to ensure that Gatwick does not try to use its expensive PR consultants to gloss over the impact.

JACKIE COKE, Clerk to the Council 01306 712447

Gatwick – December Update

Gatwick news

  1. London Airspace Consultation http://www.londonairspaceconsultation.co.uk/ concerns the design of new flight-paths into and out of Gatwick Airport.   It is sponsored by Gatwick Airport Ltd (GAL) and National Air Traffic Service (NATS). This is a vast document but if you get the opportunity please do read it.

 

  1. It is important because it contains the possibility that some people will suffer less noise and that others will suffer far more noise than at present.  But the consultation deals only with broad principles for the design of new flight-paths and does not reveal where those flight paths might be.  What’s worse, GAL and NATS do not intend consulting again when their intended flight-paths are known (except if very restricted circumstance).

 

  1. GACC has protested that such drastic changes to existing flight-paths cannot be handled adequately in this way and have said that this consultation should be followed by a second, when the proposed new flight-paths are known.  We are pleased to say that this idea gained the backing of the Airport Consultative Committee but we do not yet know how GAL and NATS will react.

 

  1. Please do not wait.  It makes sense to respond to this consultation on flight-path design as well as to any subsequent consultation on the proposed flight paths.  The deadline is 21 January 2014.

 

  1. GACC will be responding and the Parish Council will be responding but you need to respond too in respect of your own back yards.  Remember, NIMBYs are not bad people.  If they don’t look after their own back yards, nobody will and the whole environment will suffer.  GACC will make general points for the whole region but you need to speak up for your own area.

 

  1. Please do not imagine that this does not affect you, because you are not presently over-flown; the new flight paths will certainly be different.  The new routes could be placed anywhere between Chichester and Tonbridge.  People that are not affected by Gatwick at present may find themselves over-flown every couple of minutes.  Not only will this be distressing but it will also impact on the value of homes.

 

  1. Departures are particularly noisy close to the airport.  Because of this they follow Noise Preferential Routes (NPRs) until they reach 4000 ft.  Those NPRs were established long ago, when aircraft were fewer but noisier than now.  The NPRs are wide corridors 3 Km (nearly 2 miles) across and planes are widely distributed within those corridors.   Once they reach 4000 ft. they head off towards their destination, which cause them to be even more widely distributed.

 

  1. Arrivals follow a very precise track for final approach (from around 17 miles out) and so people living on that track experience frequent disturbance (often nearly one a minute).  Arrivals also cause disturbance as they approach the final approach path, generally from the South where they have often been held in stacks.  They do so in a wide swathe but some people get over-flown very often within the wide swathe.

 

  1. The maps on pages B7 to B10 show the present flight paths for Gatwick.  Do not be confused by the references to runway 08, runway 26 and to both runways.  They are the same piece of tarmac operating in different directions.  When aircraft take off and land towards the west the runway is called 26.  When they take-off and land towards the east it is called 08.

 

  1. 10.  These plans, which are nothing to do with a second runway, include:

 

Q New flight paths over areas which are at present peaceful – in order to increase the number of aircraft able to use the runway.

Q More concentrated flight paths based on more accurate aircraft navigation.

Q A major reform of the pattern of aircraft queuing up to land.

Q The possibility of ‘respite’ by using two flight paths on alternate days.

 

  1.  An important feature is the “Point Merge” system.  It involves getting arriving aircraft to fly round an arc (a portion of a circle) and calling each of them off towards the final approach path so that there is sufficient space between them.  As they are called off, they will each head towards a single merge point and then will follow a single track to the final approach path.  The single track might be developed into two tracks for respite purposes.

 

  1. 12.  NATS and GAL offer several reasons for redesigning the airspace around Gatwick.
  • The number of flights has grown enormously since the existing flight paths were designed.
  • EU rules require new technology (satellite navigation) to be introduced so that aircraft can be routed more accurately and efficiently.
  • Redesign of flight-paths will – it is claimed – make it possible to reduce noise and pollution.
  • The more precise navigation and reorganization will make it possible for aircraft in the Gatwick area to fly higher for more of the time.

 

  1. But one of the main motives for redesigning the airspace is to allow the number of flights to continue to grow.  It is GACC’s task to press for design criteria that minimize noise and pollution, even if this limits the potential for growth to some degree.  It is wrong that aviation should be allowed unfettered growth (not to mention tax concessions that encourage greater growth) at the expense of the health and wellbeing of people on the ground.

 

  1. So don’t concede the need for growth.  The case for health and wellbeing is stronger, particularly in view of the fact that the money people spend on holidays abroad is money they don’t spend on the high street at home.  There is nothing wrong with the occasional foreign holiday but our high streets and quality of life need support too.

 

  1. The deadline for the introduction of changes is 2020 but GAL and NATS would like to be ahead of the game.  If any new runways are built in the South East the exercise would need to be repeated, in part, depending on where the new runway was to be built.  But it is not possible to complete a new runway before 2025.

 

  1. For the Gatwick area this consultation concerns all arrivals from where-ever and all departures except those going north.  The area covered is shown in the map on page A6 of the consultation document and covers much of Surrey, all of East and West Sussex some of Hampshire and much of Kent.   All GACC members should consider themselves within the scope.

 

  1. GACC will say that a consultation on basic principles is a good thing but cannot replace consultation on the eventual flight-path proposals.  It would be wrong for the new flight-paths to subject new areas to noise without notice and the opportunity to comment – so there must be a second consultation on the proposed flight-paths, when they have been worked out.  We will make this point to NATS and GAL and we suggest you include it in your responses too.  We will also make the point formally to the Civil Aviation Authority and to local MPs and the Department for Transport.

 

  1. GACC will say that research is needed into the impact of noise in varying circumstances.  They hope you will endorse their case for research as well as defend your own interests.  If you live in a town you may wish to defend the present practice of avoiding towns.  If you live in the country you may want to speak up for the value of tranquil areas and point out that towns people use the countryside for recreation.  Access to the countryside is one of the greatest assets of the region.

 

  1. GACC will suggest that home owners who are newly over-flown should be compensated and that the design of new flight-paths should have, as a high priority, the avoidance of areas that have not previously been over-flown.  Please endorse the case for compensation.

 

  1. International Standards Organization guidance is that noise limits in rural areas should be 10db lower than in urban residential areas and they will suggest that routes should take account of this.  We will also point out the value of the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) surrounding Gatwick – not only to those who live within those areas but also to visitors and businesses provided for those visitors.  Such businesses are important to the economy.  And where AONBs are hilly the noise is even greater.  You may wish to endorse these points, depending upon your own circumstances.

 

  1. Paragraph 3.22 of the consultation document makes the point that the new routes will be narrow paths rather than broad corridors so anybody located under the path will find that every aircraft passes directly overhead.  We will make the point that at any altitude below 7000 ft. a single path would be intolerable and damaging to the health of the people concerned.  But again research is needed to determine whether some means of ameliorating would help in varying circumstances.  Please back the case for research into ways of ameliorating the concentration of flight paths.

 

  1. The proposal at paragraph 3.6 on page B11 would put a number of departing aircraft over the east of Horsham and is certain to cause considerable annoyance to a new set of people.  It might reduce the traffic near Capel and Ockley but since the purpose of this change is to enable more flights to take off in the early morning there may be no winners in this.  GACC will not be suggesting which areas should be over-flown but we will point out that people who are newly disturbed would have a case for compensation.  You may wish to defend your own local position.

 

  1. No change is proposed for departures taking off towards the east.

 

  1. The diagrams B6 and B7 on page B14 of the document show how respite routes might work.  As indicated in paragraph 22 above, GACC is concerned that narrow flight-paths could create intolerable situations and that some amelioration is required.  This could take the form of simultaneous load sharing between several paths or of alternating use of paths so that people have predictable respite.  You may wish to state which you prefer or to back our case for research into which works best.

 

  1. Paragraphs 3.26 and 3.27 on page B16 of the document acknowledge that a second consultation may be required, but only in respect of changes to the noise contours around Gatwick.  These contours only extend beyond the airport a few miles east and west but annoyance caused by aircraft extends about 20 miles in every direction.  As indicated in paragraph 16 above we will insist that a second consultation is needed when new flight-paths are proposed.

 

  1. The box on page B20 of the document invites views on areas or places that should receive special consideration.  GACC will make the point that flights over high ground cause more noise disturbance than over low ground and that this should receive consideration.  You may wish to endorse this point and to add other candidates for special consideration.

 

  1. The box on page B21 is similar but contemplates avoiding sensitive locations at certain times (e.g. weekends).  GACC will not be making suggestions but our members may have interests that they will wish to express.

 

  1. GACC has concerns about the proposed Point Merge system.  The reduction in holding and in stepped descents would be welcome (reduced noise and pollution) but we are very concerned that every arriving aircraft would pass over the merge point and take exactly the same path from there to the final approach path.  This could make life intolerable for those immediately underneath.  GACC will draw attention to this concentration of flights and will suggest that the merge point may be unnecessary and that aircraft could approach the final approach path on a variety of routes.  Our experience is that many people are disturbed by the number of aircraft flying over them rather than the volume of the noise they emit.  This makes concentration of flight paths undesirable. We hope you will support us in your responses.

 

  1. The consultation document suggests that Point Merge is desirable because it makes it easier for controllers to handle an increased number of flights.  We shall say that we have no problem with making life easier for controllers but not at the expense of increased concentration of flights so that people are driven to distraction in their homes and gardens or are unable to enjoy the recreation facilities of the surrounding countryside and particularly the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and National Parks.  Please support us in this.

 

  1. GACC will also suggest that the arcs that replace holding stacks should be located out at sea rather than over the South Downs, as at present.  Please support this.

 

  1. Paragraph 3.18 suggests that Point Merge helps in avoiding sensitive areas and provides the possibility of respite routes to which we give a cautious welcome.  It also boasts that the area over-flown would be reduced but this might not be beneficial if it means that arriving aircraft would all follow the same track.  Paragraphs 3.23 to 3.26 of the document suggest that Point Merge for arrivals could facilitate continuous climb for departures.  This would be welcome but we doubt whether Point Merge and particularly merge points are essential.

 

  1. Paragraph 3.32 points out that avoiding sensitive areas (urban areas and valuable tranquil areas) involves extra miles, more fuel and extra emissions.  But the extras are trivial compared with those for the flights in total.  We shall say that avoiding sensitive areas should take precedence up to 7000 ft.  Please support us in this.

 

Jackie Coke Clerk to the Council 01306 712447