CAGNE Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions

Transcription

1 10 th March 2016 CAGNE Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions Sir Roy McNulty Chairman Gatwick Airport Destination House Gatwick West Sussex Dear Sir Roy, Thank you for your letter of the 31 st March 2016 concerning the arrival review. The two points to which we referred specifically at the end of the letter to you of 10 th March 2016 were not, in fact, Imm- 10 and 11, to which you kindly responded in some detail, but these: 1. We do not feel it is fair and equitable dispersal to place arrivals over those areas that already suffer concentration (PRNAV) on departures below 4,000ft. 2. We are concerned that these residents, who are currently adversely affected by 70% of departures and easterly arrivals on the glide path, would, under the proposals in the review, also become subjected to the additional impact of westerly arrivals when the wind permitted. We urge Gatwick to re- consider these points, and then for the matter to go to the NMB, headed up by Bo Redeborn in the interest of fairness. We believe that it is the responsibility of Gatwick to address the issues facing all residents, both east and west of the airport, and not to give preference to one or the other. The other points you raise in your letter are similar as those put forward by Graham Lake during our meeting recently and, for clarity, we shall address them again, here: At no time did CAGNE suggest that the arrivals should be moved closer to the runway as, for safety reasons, the join to the ILS had been moved to 10 miles out. This was approved by the CAA. We have yet to be informed, however, why it is now considered safe to move this join again considering NATS aim of 55 ATM an hour this summer and considering the concerns of West Sussex residents following the Shoreham air crash.

2 Please see the attached map that we presented to Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake, as well as TO70. It clearly shows that the join is at 10 miles out and the widening was to extend along the full swathe in a dispersed manner, as had been historically flown since 2013 and before. The proposed width of the swathe may be similar prior to 2013, but the impact on the residents so affected was, to some degree, ameliorated by dispersal on departures and dispersal on arrivals. They now suffer from concentration on departures and, to make things worse, your team proposes to place concentrated arrivals over them as well at the 8 mile vector. As noise is the government s number one priority up to 4,000ft, the proposals we have described above seem both to ignore this policy, and to make the situation worse. We, thus, believe that this arrival review proposal in the west is in breach of government policy. Arrivals have been narrowed and PBN has not yet been introduced. They are however being flown at the 10mile join which would suggest a concentration to the inner edge of the swathe, which, we presume, is to save CO2/fuel and will therefore be placed at the proposed 8mile join. It would seem not fair and equitable dispersal to place concentrated departures, which cause great anger, as well as concentrated arrivals over these residents at below 4,000ft. NATS and CAA have confirmed that arrivals would be below 3,000ft due to them being so close to the runway on final approach. On another matter, there is no government policy to ensure that the full swathe is used. We are sure that this will be a matter raised at our AGM where NATS will be represented. We are also pleased to have representatives attending both from the CAA and Gatwick Airport. Regarding the use of the swathe, as it is down to each individual air traffic controller to route aircraft, and as the policies are to save CO2 (fuel) and to concentrate flight paths, there is nothing to believe that NATS will follow your recommendation to use the full swathe. Indeed this is unlikely. Groups from areas further away from Gatwick may still suffer aircraft noise, as there is nothing to confirm that after 4,000ft aircraft will not be routed in concentrated corridors, a point that has been said to PAGNE by CAGNE and NATS. We are pleased that our MP has met with you as he is the elected representative of the residents in his constituency. It is they who will be hardest hit by your proposals in the west. Several other MPs have been in contact with CAGNE since the Gatwick press release [31 st March) and Gatwick contacting them for a comment. Some were unaware of the safety aspect of the ILS join move in Nor were they aware

3 that the move would be impacting rural residents who already suffer concentration on departures; one in particular stating that Bo Redeborn had not mentioned this fact in relation to West Sussex. Those further away from the runway, and who have experienced an increase in arrival noise, are not impacted by departures that are far nosier than arrivals, at below 4,000ft. If they do receive departures at all, they tend to be above 7,000ft. Government policy is at this height, to save CO2 only. You may well have received more response from these residents, but equally the CAA had huge response over concentration of departures from West Sussex. The CAA chose to ignore these as old noise metrics were used and no noise events were judged. You will be well aware that over a 24- hour period, average noise breaks down to appear insignificant, whereas a noise event with a magnitude of two or three times that of the ambient noise, has a far greater impact in rural areas that have decibel ambient noise. CAGNE asks how you intend to research this and will it measure noise events in rural areas rather than taking an average? There is a vast difference to the metrics currently used by Gatwick and those used by the CAA in the PIR review that are outdated to judge the modern aircraft and the frequency of flights out and into Gatwick. You express surprise that we believe that the Arrivals Review has not been well enough communicated. CAGNE s role in the community is to represent affected residents and we are asked increasingly by parish councils to help them understand what it all means, and ask us to speak. Likewise, MPs and councillors contact us continually for assistance in understanding airspace changes at Gatwick Airport and express confusion and mistrust. This is a massively complex subject and it is hardly reasonable to expect residents to have the time to follow, never mind understand, it all. This places Gatwick at a massive advantage over them and explains why public demands upon CAGNE are so great and are ever increasing and the matter gains awareness and fear and suspicion grows. We have the support of 14 parish councils, including Wisborough Green, Kirdford, Plaistow, Billingshurst and Pulborough as well as Copthorne Village Association. By invite CAGNE recently spoke at a joint meeting of about 10 parishes and we have received requests to attend many follow up meetings with individual Councils. CAGNE is about Communities and not just about one area of West Sussex or parts of Surrey, and we seek to share flight path and Gatwick Airport information with all. No doubt, there will be groups with private agendas that support the move of noise away from their homes and place it over others. This is not a position that CAGNE shares and one that we actively discourage. We wish to represent all who are impacted and to achieve fairness.

4 You make reference to Bo Redeborn heading up the Noise Management Board. This is now confirmed in the Gatwick press release (31 st March). We believed Bo to be a very approachable and knowledgeable person, but we are concerned that departures to the west have been ignored and residents, MPs, and Councillors were not made aware that the 8- mile join will be the same merge point as that of BOGNA departure (see attached west departure map). You contend that the news that the widening of the swathe was specified prior to the conclusion of the Review and was mentioned at the Warnham meeting, which was organised by Jeremy Quin, MP. We re- iterate, residents wanted to discuss the unacceptable noise of departures and asked for a review of departures. However, both Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake declined to answer their questions. Furthermore, at no point was it stated that the BOGNA vectoring at 4,000ft would be the same join for the ILS. And to be certain of this point, CAGNE has asked residents who attended the meeting and they were not aware of the review proposal to move the join of the ILS over them. You mention the event on 16 December. Had CAGNE been aware of your review team s intension, we would have made our concerns aware to you, earlier. During this event, TO70 did not mention that the CAGNE mapping to the join to the ILS was incorrect, so perhaps they were not aware either. As to your request to have your letter placed on the CAGNE website, the committee would consider doing this if you will agree to place CAGNE letters on the Gatwick website. We would welcome a meeting with you to discuss our concerns further please rather than wait for Bo Redeborn to form NMB. Thank you Yours faithfully Sally Chair of CAGNE Cc Jeremy Quin MP Kate Jennings DfT Tim May DfT Robert Goodwill MP Patrick McLoughlin MP Andrew Haines CAA Tom Tugendhat MP Werner Spier ANS Bo Redeborn

5 Paula Street GATCOM Henry Smith MP Tim May DfT Liz Kitchen HDC Louise Goldsmith WSCC John o Brien WSCC Stewart Wingate GAL cagnegatwick@gmail.com c/o Warnham Lodge Farm, Mayes Lane, Warnham, West Sussex RH12 3SG

6