Political opinion with John Milne MP: Government lets Horsham residents down

Last week I met with the Aviation Minister, Keir Mather, to discuss my proposed amendment to the Civil Aviation Bill. There’s much to like in this legislation. However, it falls short when it comes to the comfort of Horsham residents.

As things stand, north Horsham and the three villages of Rusper, Slinfold and Warnham are threatened by a proposed new route to overfly them. This route, known as ADNID, was first trialled back in 2014. Residents experienced jets passing over their heads every 57 seconds at a much lower height.

The trial caused such an outcry that it was swiftly withdrawn, together with a promise never to try it again. Yet that is exactly what’s happening now as part of a major UK airspace modernisation process. Planes will potentially turn south for Europe almost immediately after take-off, instead of heading west for 6 kilometres.

Since my election, I’ve been demanding that residents get a fair hearing in this process. Gatwick Airport and the Civil Aviation Authority have their commercial interests, which I don’t object to. But the voice of residents must also be heard.

This is why I’ve brought an amendment to the Civil Aviation Bill to create an independent Aviation Ombudsman. In its absence, I can’t see any process or mechanism by which residents can challenge a decision so completely against local wishes.

Regrettably, the Minister declined to accept my amendment when it came to Bill Committee. I was particularly disappointed to see that the Conservative members of the committee, including my fellow Sussex MP Alison Griffith, failed to support my call. We’re being left with no defence.

To be clear, the airspace modernisation process is a good thing in principle. International flight paths were mostly laid down in the 1950s and 60s. Needless to say, a lot has changed since then. The simultaneous redrawing of routes across the continent will allow for improved safety and a considerable reduction in emissions.

However, this is not just an improvement on an existing route. It’s a new flight path. The benefits are purely commercial - it would potentially increase the number of available take-off slots - but come at the expense of residents. From an environmental point of view, there’s no significant benefit.

The Civil Aviation Bill will return to the main Chamber for further debate. I intend to re-table my amendment and argue the case again.