Category: Wokingham and West Berkshire Issues

Yesterday, I met with officials from NATS in my office in Westminster.

I explained that aircraft noise in the local area has increased significantly over recent years due to changes in the flight routes.

The NATS officials contend that they have only made a minor change to the Compton route by narrowing the Compton gate (through which all local air traffic between 6,000 to 8000 feet passes) from 13 miles to 8. However, the officials conceded that this has resulted in more concentrated air traffic through the route.

Another issue that came up is the impact of the Ockham Hold, situated at 7,000 feet above Chobham in Surrey. The Ockham Hold is one of four holding “stacks” supporting Heathrow where aircraft circle, at busy times, until there is a place for them in the queue to land. The hold is the likely cause of much of the noise in this area.

When on easterly operations, arrivals for Heathrow from the Ockham hold fly west above Crowthorne and Wokingham in order to be sequenced for landing, at which time they are at 5,000 to 6,000 feet. They fly beneath the departing aircraft, which pass through the Compton gate. I was told that once aircraft leave the Ockham Hold they should achieve a continuously descending approach which reduces noise levels.

The NATS officials explained that they have already acted to slow down traffic at 350 nautical miles from Heathrow as it comes across the Atlantic. NATS are slowing down traffic in co-operation with their Irish and European counterparts to reduce the need for planes to use the Ockham Hold.

With modern technology it should be possible to avoid stacks and pointless flying around in circles, keeping places well out and flying at slower speeds so they arrive when a landing slot is available.

The officials also confirmed that the Government intends to begin a consultation on aviation noise in 2016 with a view to issuing new guidance to NATS.

I presented the petition from Wokingham Borough Councillors to the government in Parliament on Tuesday evening. The petition urges the government to make rapid progress in implementing its promise to give more money to schools in areas like Wokingham which have been receiving much less cash per pupil than many other parts of the country. I am grateful to Councillors for signing it.

Words of the petition:

To the House of Commons.
The petition of residents of Wokingham.
Declares that the petitioners believe the existing school funding model in England is arbitrary and unfair; further declares that the ten best funded areas of England have on average received grants of £6,300 per pupil this year; compared to an average of £4,200 per pupil in the ten most poorly funded areas of England; and further declares that the petitioners welcome the Governments commitment to introduce fairer school funding.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons supports the earliest possible introduction of a new National Funding Formula for schools in England.
And the petitioners remain, etc.

I met the Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLouglin, and the Roads Minister, Andrew Jones at Westminster to remind them of the case for better anti noise measures for the M4 as part of the Smart motorway proposals. Past representations that I and others have made have resulted in some noise reducing measures in the proposal, and in further consideration of what additional features we need.
I explained that we needed not just noise reducing materials for the surface of the improved motorway, but also sound reducing barriers wherever there are homes adjacent to the motorway, in many cases on both sides of the road. The Ministers asked for maps to reinforce the point which I will supply.
Wokingham Borough Council has also made similar representations to the Inspector considering the scheme, as I have done in writing. Councillor Norman Jorgensen attended on behalf of the local community to put the case in person.

A number of constituents have contacted me opposing UK bombing in Syria. In view of the interest I am sharing my reply to them here:

I opposed bombing the Assad regime two years ago when the Coalition government wished to do it and was pleased Parliament got the government to withdraw the planned motion for military action. Parliament subsequently went on to vote down a motion that anyway did not offer permission for the use of force. I did not support that diluted government motion.
This time I accept that Daesh is a serious threat to us as it is a movement that has people and sympathisers in western countries as well as in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East. I have urged the government to take stronger measures to police our borders, to improve intelligence as they are now doing, and to reinforce our defences against home grown terrorism and against would be terrorists seeking entry to the UK.
I have asked the government a series of questions about their wish to add UK bombs to the bombing campaigns of the USA, France and Russia currently being undertaken in Syria:

1. As all agree ground troops are needed to work with bombing campaigns to destroy or remove Daesh from Syria, who will provide the ground army? How can we be sure they will work well with us, directing our bombers , reporting back on what has been achieved from the air and using the opportunity the bombing campaign provides to retake territory on the ground?
2. Is the UK government clear that its only military objective is to attack Daesh, or does it also still wish to remove the Assad regime?
3. What is the political strategy for rebuilding responsible government in Syria? Who will govern the areas currently run by Daesh if the military campaign works?
4. Is the UK planning to work alongside Russia, or is it possible to run a different military campaign with different objectives to the Russian one without entailing dangerous disputes with Russia?
5. The Free Syrian army is said to offer ground troops to win this war. Who commands them? Where are their forces? Can these very divergent groups of fighters be an available army for this task? How would we be able to co-ordinate with them? Why if there are 70,000 of them have they not already retaken Raqqa?

I await considered answers to these questions. I have no wish to impede assisting our allies or preventing further terrorist abuses, but I do wish to see a thought through strategy with emphasis on a future political settlement.

The pace is quickening over possible UK military intervention in Syria.

I have set out the worries I have about bombing, and explained why I think there needs to be a proper peace process. To tackle ISIL on the ground there also needs to be local ground forces capable of doing the job. I have put these points directly to Ministers, and they are seeking to improve their responses to these legitimate concerns. We also need to redouble our security at our borders and strengthen our intelligence at home, as some extremists may be in our own community, where we wish to proceed by arrest, trial or deportation. I have asked for this, and the government has announced measures to improve our internal response.

I think we all agree that ISIL are a dangerous and violent group who do pose a threat to us in the UK as well as to many in Syria and Iraq. That is not in contention. Nor do most worry about killing violent men who have themselves already murdered people and plan to murder more, if there is no safe means of arresting and prosecuting them in the normal way.

The issues that remain relate to how UK bombing alongside French and US bombing that has been happening for some time will make the difference, who finds the targets and directs the bombers, who will act as the ground force needed to carry out the task of removing ISIL from Syria, who amongst the warring factions are our reliable allies if we intervene, and how will the peace process progress.

I would be interested in constituents views on all this as we approach a possible vote on the UK joining the allied air action.

I received a number of constituency emails urging the government not to go ahead with the planned cuts in tax credits. I spoke in favour of ensuring people were better off as a result of tax and benefit changes in the Budget debate, followed that up with conversations and blogs, and lobbied the Chancellor to drop his proposals. So did others.
I am pleased to report that he has cancelled all the cuts, so your representations have worked.

I have received the enclosed letter from Ofcom about mobile phone coverage in Wokingham:

Dear John,

In August we launched our online Mobile Coverage Checker to help consumers check the coverage they could expect anywhere in the UK. Using data from the four UK mobile phone network providers, our interactive map shows the predicted level of coverage both in doors and outside. It shows coverage for voice calls, 3G and 4G data connections.

It has proved to be a very popular tool for businesses and consumers: with over 286,710 people using our maps since their launch and around 1,500 people still using the checker each day.

I thought you might find it useful to see what the predicted mobile coverage is for voice calls in your constituency.

We also thought you might be interested in highlighting the checker to your constituents, who can use it to give us feedback for the local area. The feedback we get from the public is really important in helping us improve the maps, as people can tell us whether their experience matches what our database tells them – more than 4,000 people have done this so far. Please feel free to tweet or post on Facebook about the online tool. If you want to highlight the tool locally you might want to tweet or post something like:

“Want to know what mobile coverage you can expect in Wokingham? Have you tried the @ofcom mobile coverage checker? http://t.co/gYVvMG4Lj2”

“Want to know what mobile coverage you can expect in Wokingham (even inside your house)? Try the @ofcom mobile coverage checker and let them know what you think! http://t.co/gYVvMG4Lj2”

Because of this feedback we are able to update these maps monthly and do testing of our own to validate the coverage data from mobile phone networks. And we have plans to develop this tool further and will be rolling out improvements in the New Year.

Later this year, we will also be launching a mobile ‘app’ for smartphones and tablets, which will allow people to test their Wi-Fi connection. We estimate that consumers’ home broadband experience may not be working as well as it could in around a fifth of UK homes. The new app will help identify if someone’s broadband isn’t performing as it should be, and suggest simple trouble-shooting tips to help address it.

So please let me know if you would like more information on Ofcom’s work on promoting better mobile coverage and how we are helping consumers get the best out of their contracts.

Yours sincerely,

Sharon White
Chief Executive

Yesterday I chaired a meeting with the Aviation Minister, Mr Goodwill in my room at Westminster. Also present were Philip Lee, MP for Bracknell, and John Howell, MP for Henley, and two officials from the Transport department.

I explained the background to the change of air routes over the 3 constituencies represented at the meeting. I asked the Minister to require NATs and Heathrow to go back to the position before the trials of new routes. In particular I asked that he requires planes to fly considerably higher over our part of the world, and to disperse both take off and landing approach routes as used to happen. All agreed that slowing planes on their way in to the UK to cut the number of planes stacked over built up areas would be a win win, saving fuel and reducing noise and risk. It is possible to remove the need for stacking any planes over built up areas. All agreed flying higher would help cut noise.

 

I will follow up with the Minister when he has time to consider our submissions.

Last week I held a meeting with an experienced airline pilot captain who has flown many times into and out of Heathrow.

 

He confirmed what many of us have worked out. NATs changes have meant there are more flights that are concentrated along the same route. The old dispersal pattern has been ended. There are also many more flights that are lower over the Wokingham area.

There are several simple ways this problem can be remedied, if only the airlines, Heathrow and NATs will seek to do so.

1. Planes taking off should use fuller power for a bit longer to get higher sooner. This does not mean burning more fuel overall, as fuel use decreases sooner when the plane is higher. Getting planes higher sooner will spare many more homes beneath.
2. Planes coming in to land during easterly operations should stay higher for longer. They should also avoid lowering their undercarriages prematurely as many do today, to  both save fuel and cut noise.
3. NATs should revert to asking planes to take diverging pathways out so no one line of route is subject to continuous noise all day and evening.
4. Heathrow and NATS should plan arrivals better to avoid large stacks of planes flying and turning corners at relatively low altitudes over built up areas.

I am going to put these and related points again to Ministers, Heathrow and NATs.

I have put the case to Minsters for more noise abatement on the M4, and am doing so again in conjunction with Wokingham Borough representations to the Planning Inspector. I am asking for noise barriers as well as lower noise surfaces on all sections of the M4 running past affected residential areas in my constituency, including Earley, Winnersh and Sindlesham. I have put in new anti noise submissions to the Planning Inspector, following past representations, and am also putting them again to Highways England.