Letter to the Editor: Government seeks to gag communities over impact of airspace change

Aircraft noise impact is currently considered up to 7,000ft but the proposal is to reduce this nationally to 4,000ft, ignoring the noise above this low level. The current policy is to consider noise and CO2-saving equally, from 4,000ft to 7,000ft.

This proposed change would mean that all the residents who are significantly impacted by aircraft noise (day and night in Gatwick Airport’s case) would not have a voice”, says CAGNE, the umbrella aviation community and environment group for Sussex, Surrey and Kent.

The proposal to make saving CO2 the priority from 4,000ft to 7,000ft would be commendable, if it was not for the fact that this government seeks growth at any price to those on the ground, in favour of aviation. Communities could see new flight paths in which planes vector (turn) over new areas as they climb more quickly, as well as an increase in plane numbers, negating any CO2-saving from the more-direct routes.

The government also proposes other changes, such as the removal of noise preferential routes (NPRs) – corridors within which departures have historically been contained.

NPRs are as important today as they were when introduced, as they allow for certainty about where planes will fly, so buyers of houses below are aware of this at time of purchase. They also allow for dispersal, so removing the impact of concentrated flight paths, known as motorways in the sky.

Other ANG proposals that are simply unacceptable to communities –

· Trials would be for 3 years instead of the current 6 months, with the Civil Aviation Authority gaining more influence.

This would use trapped communities as long-term guineapigs for aviation experiments.

· Airspace change should not contain environmental studies.

These studies include noise impacts, so they must be included in any airspace change, to evaluate the impact on the ground.

· The new ANG seeks to place responsibility for increased capacity and associated increases in CO2 emissions elsewhere in the proposals, especially associated with the planning system.

This would seem an illogical move. The increased capacity created by airspace change (with associated increased emissions) must be considered.

· Overall, the Civil Aviation Authority has a vested interest in aviation, which gives it too much power.

The proposal to give the CAA more powers over airspace change would reduce the community voice further by seeking to engage directly (predominantly) with local authorities. These bodies often have a vested interest and lack an understanding of the ramifications on the ground of airspace change to all communities.

· Emissions from aircraft above 1,000ft are unlikely to have a significant impact on local air quality.

This does not appear to be substantiated with evidence (ultrafine particles from landing aircraft), so must be objected to.

The Civil Aviation Authority has conducted 5 consultations over the Christmas period relating to airspace change, one of which was to weaken the public consultation process of CAP1616.

The ANG proposal, together with a weakened CAP1616 process (deadline 18.12.25), removes any chance of a balanced approach to aviation growth. If allowed, it will result in communities ultimately paying the price, with inevitable decline in wellbeing, damage to local environments, and house values affected*, especially in rural locations.

This is also another disingenuous example of the lack of commitment to saving CO2.

CAGNE

Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions