Category: Wokingham and West Berkshire Issues

Yesterday I held a meeting with the Roads Minister, Mr Andrew Jones, after the meeting about the M25, to discuss problems with the latest Highways England scheme for the M4/A329M junction.

I explained that the Highways England scheme has reduced queues to get off the M4 at the price of creating big jams on the A 329M at busy times, and causing crashes. The decision to remove one of the two lanes from use for through traffic has cut capacity too far on the A 329 M, as the flows on the motorway usually exceed the flow of traffic joining the motorway by a substantial margin.

I asked him to review with Highways England the dangers and congestion caused, and to come up with a safer solution which restores capacity on the A 329 M.

The UK government is commencing a consultation over how to deal with the lack of road capacity on the western and south western section of the M25.
I attended a meeting with the Roads Minister, Andrew Jones, and his officials in the Commons to discuss the issues and hear the plans for the consultation. They will draw up a project to resolve the lack of transport capacity in the area. Only 2 MPs attended, so I had plenty of opportunity to explore matters with the Minister.

The Minister’s officials confirmed that the Statutory consultees will include local MPs and principal Councils. I sought and received an assurance that Wokingham Borough will be one of the consultees, as the study is considering places beyond the M 25 as well as places within the M 25 affected by it and related roads.

I pointed out that we are short of peak hours railway capacity as well as short of road capacity. I reminded them that the western part of the M25 has many junctions in a short distance which adds to congestion, and has to handle the ever growing traffic volumes for Heathrow. The road takes a lot of long haul traffic seeking to get round London by the west, as well as local traffic going just one or two junctions as part of a journey that may straddle the motorway.

The Minister agreed that the study needs to consider the wider issues of the routes of the A 329M, A 322 and A 404. I raised again the question of bridge capacity over the Thames. The Minister reminded me that they were also considering cross country links not entailing using the M25.

I would be happy to hear views on the possible solutions. I will write in with a formal submission later in the process.

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the potential effect on seating capacity of the Great Western Main Line electrification project. (21827)
Tabled on: 11 January 2016
Answer:
Claire Perry:
The electrification programme will help dramatically increase seating capacity on the Great Western Main Line, with the Intercity Express Programme providing up to 40% more seats in the morning peak (compared to the HST fleet it replaces) in to Paddington and the new AT300s increasing seating capacity on Newbury to London services.

It is good news that the government is now considering more noise barriers along the M4 adjacent to Earley, Emmbrook, Sindlesham and Winnersh. This follows an extensive campaign by myself, by Wokingham Borough, and by Councillor Norman Jorgensen. It has also had cross party support from the Liberal democrats.
Our most recent interventions were Councillor Jorgensen’s attendance at the open Planning enquiry and my meeting with the Minister in the Commons.

I previously wrote to Robert Goodwill MP, the Aviation Minister about aircraft noise. I have now received the enclosed response from him:

Rt Hon John Redwood MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

8 January 2016

Dear John

Thank you for your letter of 9 December which followed our recent meeting of 23 November – attended also by Phillip Lee and John Howell – where we discussed the impact of aircraft noise on your constituency.

As promised during the meeting, I recently arranged for Martin Rolfe, CEO of NATS, and some of his colleagues to come and discuss with me the issues that you raised around the procedural change to the Compton Gate and aircraft noise more generally.

I agree that the way the procedural change was carried out was unfortunate. While I understand this change has both enhanced safety and reduced the noise which many people experience as planes can now climb and descend at greater angles, I realise that for some people this may have led to more aircraft overflying them. It is disappointing that these people were not informed of the change before it took place and that NATS also seems to have failed to notify Heathrow of the change. I am pleased NATS has apologised for these errors and that it has committed to reviewing its processes to ensure a similar situation does not occur again.

I also discussed with NATS the issue of stacking which you raised in your letter. Unfortunately, due to the constraints on capacity at Heathrow, aircraft often have to join a stack while they wait for permission to land. Due to safety requirements, and the need to ensure aircraft are a safe distance from one another, there are limitations on the speed, altitude, and angle of descent of arrival aircraft which impose significant constraints on existing air traffic control operations.

As part of the plan to modernise our airspace, however, NATS is putting in place procedures that may allow them to control aircraft further away from populated areas of the SE of England. This will reduce the need for stacking and enable NATS to ensure that requirements for airborne holding are higher and further away than they are today. As part of its XMAN project, NATS has already made some improvements which have reduced stacking over London, but it is hoping to do a lot more by 2020.

Regarding the issue of planes being required to climb or descend at greater angles, the Government already issues noise abatement procedures to this effect at Heathrow. Most aircraft comply with these requirements, with 88% of aircraft at Heathrow adhering to the continuous descent approach requirements, rising to 96% at night. I’m sure you appreciate that safety must always be the priority for aircraft and there may be legitimate occasions when it is neither safe nor possible to adhere to these requirements. As you will be aware, Heathrow is currently trialling a steeper angle of descent and the long-term aim is to incorporate these changes within its proposals for airspace modernisation.

Finally, with the exception of the Compton change which I have already addressed, NATS reassured me that there have been no specific changes to easterly departures that will have increased the concentration of aircraft over your constituents. The trials which took place in 2014 have reverted to their previous form, but there may be random variations in the frequency and type of aircraft using particular routes that may affect how noise is distributed. It should also be noted that some aircraft are able to fly routes more accurately resulting in less dispersal than previously existed. At Heathrow, this will not be due to the introduction of performance-based navigation (PBN) but can partially be explained by the increased navigational capabilities of aircraft and improvements in airspace systemisation. Nonetheless, I would like to reassure you that officials at the Department for Transport are aware of how strongly communities feel about these issues are looking into these matters.

I hope you have find this response useful.

Yours sincerely

ROBERT GOODWILL

Yesterday I met the Secretary of State for Communities and local government. I put to him the need for a better financial settlement.

I reminded him that West Berkshire and Wokingham won a judicial review over the issue of care costs, and is still awaiting the extra money they are due for this purpose.

The two Councils also need more flexibility over total care costs than the proposed formula and system allows.

I also raised the issue of the scale and speed of the reduction in grant, seeking a dampener in the formula.

I have received this letter from Jeremy Hunt about doctors’ contracts:

On Monday evening, the British Medical Association walked out of talks with the Government and announced that junior doctors would be taking industrial action which will last for four days –

• Withdrawing elective cover for 24 hours next Tuesday;
• Escalating the same action for 48 hours later in January;
• Holding an unprecedented full walkout in early February.

As Professor Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, has previously said, the action the BMA proposes “is a step too far. I urge junior doctors to think about the patients that will suffer and I ask the union to reconsider its approach.”

The BMA’s decision is particularly disappointing given that we had made good progress in talks, talks which had restarted in December after the decision to go to ACAS. Danny Mortimer, Chief Executive of NHS Employers, and who has been conducting negotiations on behalf of the Government, confirmed that in those talks we had resolved 15 of the 16 issues put forward by the BMA before Christmas – everything apart from weekend pay. However after we presented an improved offer on Monday, it took less than an hour for the BMA to walk away. In fact, they issued notice of industrial action to some organisations whilst negotiations were still going on.

My absolute priority is patient safety and making sure that the NHS delivers high-quality care 7 days a week – and we know that’s what doctors want too. So it is hard to understand why the BMA are forcing a strike that risks patient safety at the most challenging time of year for the NHS. The case for change is unarguable –

• Seven studies in the last five years talk about the weekend effect, including two in the last six weeks;
• New-born deaths are 7% more likely, emergency surgery deaths are 11% more likely, stroke deaths 20% more likely and cancer deaths 29% more likely for those admitted at or around weekends, which is why a truly 7-day NHS was a key promise in our Manifesto.

As the NHS Medical Director, Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, has said, the new contract will improve safety if implemented correctly, and this deal is a very fair one for doctors –

• 75% of doctors will see their salary increase – and everyone working within legal hours will have their pay protected;
• A reduction in Saturday working rates will be offset by an 11% increase in basic pay, which will mean doctors’ pensions pots also go up;
• It will mean better rostering of doctors, ending the current situation where hospitals roster three times less medical cover at weekends compared to weekdays, and more support for consultants;
• It cuts the maximum working week from 91 to 72 hours, and introduces a new maximum shift pattern of 4 night shifts or 5 long day shifts – compared to the current contract which permits 7 consecutive night shifts or 12 consecutive long day shifts;
• It gives greater flexibility on rotas, so that juniors no longer have to miss special occasions due to inflexible rostering.

Let’s remember that the Spending Review confirmed an additional £3.8 billion for the NHS next year – but we can’t make Labour’s mistake of investing that money without also asking for reforms that improve patient care. Indeed Labour negotiated the current deeply flawed junior doctor contract in 1999, followed by the consultant contract (which gave a specific opt-out from weekend working) in 2003, and the GP contract (which allowed opting out of out-of-hours care) in 2004. Their reforms made things worse for patients, but we are determined to make the NHS the safest, highest quality healthcare system in the world.

Yours ever,

Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP
Secretary of State for Health

I have received a letter from Highways England in response to my recent enquiries about noise barriers on the M4:

29 December 2015

Dear Mr Redwood

Thank you for your letter addressed to Jim O’Sullivan (Chief Executive of Highways England) of 25 November 2015 regarding the M4 junction J3-J12 smart motorway project.

As this issue falls within my area of responsibility, Jim O’Sullivan has asked me to reply to you personally on this matter.

I am sorry to hear your concerns that the proposed noise barriers are not as extensive as you and your constituents would like.

As you will recall from our previous correspondence the scheme proposals include additional lengths of noise barrier either side of Mill Lane Bridge, Sindlesham. On the westbound side there will be an additional 50m length across the bridge. On the eastbound side there will be an additional 200m length, which again crosses the bridge and includes lengths on both approaches. We will also provide low noise surfacing across all lanes.

An assessment of the effects of noise reflections from the barriers has been undertaken as part of the modelling work we have carried out for the scheme. This assessment, which includes the positive impact of low-noise surfacing, has demonstrated that these measures will provide appropriate levels of noise mitigation between junction 11 and junction 10.

We are, however, also currently carrying out a further study looking at potential enhanced noise mitigation within the scheme corridor. The areas of Shinfield, Earley, Emmbrook, Whitley Wood, Sindlesham and Winnersh are included in this enhanced mitigation study. This study will assess benefits against cost. We expect to have the results in January 2016 and we will let you know the outcome of this.

Yours sincerely

Peter Adams
Director of Major Projects

Dear Mr Holland-Kaye

Thank you for your letter of 15 December.

The changes that NATS made, without consultation, in June 2014 to the Compton Gate have resulted in incessant noise over the Wokingham area due to the concentration of flights over one area, rather than their dispersal. The various mitigating effects that you have described to me over the past months appear good in theory but they are having no effect on reducing the noise level above our houses.

I have no wish to engage in a continuous dialogue or await some new consultation. What I and my constituents wish to see is a return to the pre-June2014 dispersal and Gate policies.

It is difficult to see why Wokingham would wish to support an expansion of the airport if this matter cannot be put right promptly.

Yours sincerely

John Redwood

I have received the following letter from the CEO of Heathrow Airport, addressing the points raised in my conversation with a pilot last month:

Thank you for your letter dated 23rd November.  I am grateful that you continue to engage in a constructive dialogue with us on these important issues.  With regard to the recent conversation you had with a pilot, I would make the following comments in response:

Aircraft altitudes on departure

Heathrow’s departure routes and procedures regarding climb gradients were designed in the 1960s.  As modern aircraft fleets have replaced older technology, we have seen a steady increase in aircraft altitudes.  Indeed, the recent analysis undertaken by independent analysts PA Consulting shows that over the last five years, there has been an upward trend in the altitude of departures over Wokingham.  This is what we would expect with modern aircraft fleets.  However, further improvements beyond this will be limited in the short term because of the airspace constraints that NATS work within.

Heathrow’s airspace is one of the most congested in the world due to:  the proximity of four other major airports (Gatwick, Stansted, City and Luton); the location of the four holding stacks; and the interaction between arriving and departing traffic.  Taken together, these mean that until changes are made to the whole of London’s airspace through the Government’s modernisation programme, it will not be possible to increase further the height of aircraft.

As part of any future changes to climb gradients, the noise impacts of steeper climb gradients will have to be considered.  There will always be trade-offs.  While getting aircraft at greater altitudes more quickly may benefit some, it will also result in increased noise for others.

Aircraft altitudes on arrival

The majority of aircraft coming into land at Heathrow already perform what is known as a Continuous Descent Approach or CDA.  This is a procedure aircraft perform after leaving the holding stacks, from approx. 6,000 feet and before they lock onto the final approach (the last 10 miles or so when aircraft line up in a straight line into the airport).  It involves aircraft maintaining a steady angle of approach when landing at the airport, as opposed to stepped approaches which involve prolonged periods of level flight.

Continuous Descent Approaches reduce noise because they require less engine thrust and keep the aircraft higher for longer.  Some 87% of arriving aircraft currently use CDA at Heathrow.

In order to achieve the objective of keeping aircraft higher before they reach the final approach, there are a number of ways this might be possible in future.  The first is to introduce a steeper final approach angle, which would mean aircraft approach the airport at a higher altitude.  Currently the approach angle of the final approach (known as the Instrument Landing System) is set at 3 degrees.  This means that depending on the point that aircraft join it, they will be at a set height from touchdown.  We are currently trialing a slightly steeper approach with a view to increasing it further in the future.

We are also investigating the feasibility of what are called ‘segmented approaches’.  A two-segmented approach adopts an intermediate approach phase flown at a steeper angle, before transitioning back to a standard 3 degree approach.  This would potentially provide noise benefits further out during the approach phase, without affecting the final approach phase.

Diverging flightpaths

Aside from the procedural change that NATS made in 2014 to the Compton route, which has meant more flights over areas in the Wokingham area, there have not been amendments to procedures that change the way aircraft are directed.

For areas closer to Heathrow, improvements in aircraft navigational technology has meant there is a trend for aircraft to be more concentrated with the established departure routes.

In areas further away from the airport, including areas in your constituency, the independent analysis shows that there is still a degree of natural dispersal once aircraft are over 4,000 feet (the point that they can leave the departure route).  Nevertheless, it confirms that there has been an overall increase in aircraft numbers passing over the area which will account for the increased over flight some people experience.

Our view is that in planning future airspace changes, the industry should explore how new precision technology could be used to create alternating departure routes that would provide period of predictable respite from noise for residents.  Currently aviation policy favours concentration over dispersal, although we understand that, as part of a consultation on airspace policy next year, it will seek views as to whether this is still the right approach.  It will be important that you and others make your views known during this process.

Arrivals management

Regarding better planning of arrivals, NATS has just adopted a new operational procedure – known as ‘XMAN’ – that cuts the amount of time that aircraft circle in holding stacks.  This is done by slowing down traffic in their en-route phase when delays are anticipated on arrival.

Traditionally NATS has only been able to influence an arriving aircraft’s approach to Heathrow once it enters UK airspace – sometimes only 80 miles from the airport.  This limits the opportunity to manage the flow of traffic and can result in additional time spent in the holding stacks.

Under the XMAN system, if delays in the Heathrow holding stacks begin to build, air traffic controllers in the Netherlands, France, Scotland and Ireland are asked to slow down aircraft up to 350 miles away from London to help minimize delays on arrival.  Absorbing delay in the en-route phase, when aircraft are higher and more efficient, saves fuel and CO2 while minimising noise for the communities living beneath the stacks.

I would be happy to meet to discuss these issues in more detail.

Yours sincerely

John Holland-Kaye

Chief Executive Officer