Reply to CEO Heathrow Airport re aircraft noise

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

1 Comment

  1. Tim Henderson
    January 2, 2016

    It might be worth quoting from the “Operations – Proof of Evidence” HAL.MB.P.1 that the Heathrow team recently submitted to the Planning Inspectors presiding over the recent Appeal Inquiry hearing regarding the works to end the Cranford Agreement.

    “3.8.3. Furthermore, the Civil Aviation Authority (Air Navigation) Directions 2001 (as amended),
    published under Section 66(1) of the Transport Act 2000 set out the circumstances when
    the CAA must also seek the approval of the SofS for ā€œchanges to the design or to the
    provision of airspace arrangements, or to the use made of themā€, namely where those
    changes would have a significantly detrimental effect on the environment or where they
    would have a significant effect on the level or distribution of noise and emissions. The
    Directions included within the definition of ā€œairspace arrangementsā€ ā€œchanges to air traffic
    control procedures, or to the provision of navigational aids or the use made of them in air
    navigationā€. It follows that a number of operational changes involving airspace change,
    changes to ATC procedures or navigational aids will trigger the involvement of the SofS
    and the consideration of environmental information before any decision can be taken on
    their implementation.”

    Andrew Haines, Chief Executive of CAA, has argued that changes due to NATS vectoring choices are not changes that are subject to the formal Airspace Change Process ( see
    http://www.gatwickobviouslynot.org/docs/GON_Statement_of_Facts_and_Grounds.pdf
    )

    It is noteworthy that Heathrow does not appear to accept this .

Comments are closed.