Agenda item

FLIGHT PATH ISSUES

To receive a verbal update from resident Andrew Hall concerning the routing of flights over the Ascot / Burnham path.

 

To receive a verbal update from Cllr David Hilton following ongoing correspondence with NATS concerning the Compton Gate.

 

Minutes:

Andrew Hall, resident, gave a verbal update concerning the routing flights over the Ascot/Burnham path. Andrew Hall highlighted the following points:

·         The noise pollution, there are no flights between 11.30pm and 4.30am and some flights cannot fly over Heathrow for certain routes.

·         Helicopters are restricted to 500/1000ft high.

·         Silence was not possible as small planes were still allowed to fly.

·         There have been two major changes in the last thirty years, there were a lot more planes and there were now helicopters compared to the 1950s.

·         Over the decades, the Ascot/Burnham route has become increasingly busy with a high increase in flights, larger fuel tanks, larger populations and a definite decrease in safety.

·         The third runway reviews must include the safety issues.

 

Councillor Hilton asked where the helicopters were heading. Helicopters were flying round the perimeter fence hence having to fly the Ascot/Burnham route. Many helicopters were from the Blackbush and Farnborough areas heading northwards.

 

Chris Nash informed Members that their concerns were going to be addressed with the CAA in the next couple of months when SASIG meet  to consider the issue. Chris Nash was happy to put forward concerns at this meeting. Airport Watch had already wrote to the Prime Minister requesting a consultation. Councillor Beer informed the Members that HAAC had already considered helicopter movements.

 

Councillor Hilton updated the Members on the ongoing correspondence with NATS concerning the Compton Gate. The points discussed by Councillor Hilton included:

·         The verified radar data provided by Heathrow was accurate.

·         The final analysis was three weeks ago, assessment had been written which had not been published yet. It had not been agreed with Heathrow. Currently the assessment was being reviewed and amended before publishing.

·         A380’s were flown over the 3km gate, more than half flew below 4000ft and many outside the noise proliferation. This was checked by the community representatives and all results would be published.

·         The Community Noise Forum was moving forward in the following ways:

o   Monitoring and verification

o   Operating procedures

o   Reduce impact of Heathrow’s night flight operation.

o   Research, policy and communication (health and restbite, communications in noise issues)

o   The Compton Route and developing a new route.

·         A series of different routes had been proposed and the best route would be reported on once the work was completed. Councillor Hilton had suggested a consultation was the best way forward.

 

Councillor Beer left the Aviation Forum at 7.45pm.

 

Chris Nash gave the SASIG update. Points that Chris discussed included:

·         Department of Transport (DfT) were currently embarking on a review of airspace and noise policy. It was reviewing the responsibilities of CAA, ATC and the Secretary of State in airspace design and regulation.

·         Chris Nash had attended a presentation by Kate Jennings, Head of Airspace Policy at DfT on 4 March where she had set out a number of key aims of the review. The aims were as below:

o   Review NPRs

o   Support the CAA in reviewing CAP725

o   Reviewing need for new statutory guidance – particularly from an environmental perspective

o   Exploring the role of a proposed Independent Aviation Noise Authority

o   Work on how concentrations of aircraft can be addressed (both above and below 4,000ft) and the metrics used to measure.

o   This is to be viewed in conjunction with their noise attitudes study (SONA) which is expected to be published at some point this year.

 

Chris Nash outlined to the CAA that, in response to the presentation that it was vital for community groups and local authorities to be consulted and that care needed to be taken by the DfT in clarifying ‘Airspace Change’ and ‘Airspace Use’ as failure to distinguish these two had led in part of the disruption over communities such as Ascot and surrounding areas.

 

Chris Nash continued to inform the Forum that further to the information received at SASIG, the borough was contacted by the Aviation Environment Federation (AEF), an environmental lobbying group, to gather our views on the current engagement it was having regarding the DfT’s draft noise proposals. The questions currently being asked are as follows:

  • The future role of the Secretary of State (SoS) in the airspace change process (including whether or not to retain the requirement, never in fact used, for the CAA to seek the approval of the SofS when there is likely to be a “significant detrimental effect on the environment”
  • Proposals for new consultation requirements relating to “Permanent and planned redistribution of air traffic” even if it falls outside the Airspace Change Process as defined by the CAA
  • The proposed removal of Noise Preferential Routes at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, with a new duty proposed for the three designated airports to publish details of all the aircraft tracks actually flown on each departure route on at least a quarterly basis.

Chris Nash proposed that if the Forum agreed, a response would be pulled together in consultation with the chairman and Cllr Hilton which would highlight the potential for impact of flight path changes and that the system is not currently working, resulting in a great impact on local residents. A request can then be made to the DfT via the AEF that they engage with neighbouring local authorities directly via full consultation once the feedback sessions were complete.

The Forum agreed with the suggestion made by Chris Nash.