Residents vow to fight to win

Residents from HACAN ClearSkies vowed to continue their fight to stop night flights at Heathrow following today’s judgement from the European Court of Human Rights. The court overturned the earlier judgment that night flights breached the Human Rights Convention (1), but it gave the residents the green light to take their fight back to the UK courts (2).

John Stewart, Chair HACAN ClearSkies, said, “The European court seems to have given us the opportunity to argue our case again in the UK courts. We fight on. We fight to win. We believe it is a battle we will win as we have the support of most of the politicians in London and the Thames Valley. The political pressure on the Government will remain to do something about night flight.”

Notes for Editors

1. The Appeal Court did not agree, by a majority of 12-5, with the the judgement of the earlier court (released in October 2001) that night flights were a breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention that guarantees people a right to “the peaceful enjoyment” of their own homes.

2. The Appeal Court did find, by a majority of 18-1 (only the UK judge dissenting), that, under Article 13 of the Human Rights Convention, the residents had not been given the opportunity to make their case fully in the UK Courts: crucially, that they had not been able to argue the human rights aspects of the case in the UK courts because human rights legislation had not been incorporated into UK law at the time.

For further information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957 385650.

Research raises fears amongst residents

Research by pressure group HACAN ClearSkies shows that a 3rd runway at Heathrow would be full by 2015. The research raises fears amongst residents that a full-length runway will eventually be built rather than the short runway currently under consideration.

The Government’s consultation document into options for runway expansion expects Heathrow to be able to cater for 116 million passengers per year in 2015, using a total of 655,000 flights. The consultation documents predicts the numbers will be exactly the same in 2030 (1).

John Stewart, the Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “The Government’s position is not credible. It stretches belief that it does not expect any increase in passengers over the 15 years between 2015 and 2030. Either it has badly miscalculated or it knows it will need a full-scale runway before 2030.”

Earlier this year the Government consulted on proposals for a new short runway at Heathrow that would take the smaller planes. The Government will announce its decision on whether to give the go-ahead for this runway when it publishes its Aviation White Paper, expected in mid-December.

Notes for Editors

1. The figures are contained on page 51 of SERAS, the consultation document that laid out options for airport expansion in London and the South East. Other options included new runways at Gatwick and Stansed and a new airport at Cliffe on the North Kent Coast.

For more information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957 385650.

Announcement made on National Noise Action Day

The four principal candidates for Mayor of London have all confirmed to pressure group HACAN ClearSkies that they are opposed to any further expansion of Heathrow Airport. They have all come out against a 3rd runway at Heathrow. They are united in their opposition to any plans to end runway alternation and support a phasing out of night flights (1).

HACAN ClearSkies released the news to coincide with National Noise Action Day (2).

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “This is a huge snub to the Government. It refuses to call a halt to expansion at Heathrow. Yet here are all the main mayoral candidates asking it to do just that. They know that a bigger Heathrow is not required to boost London’s economy. It is time the Government stopped obeying the voices of the aviation industry and started listening to the representatives of the people of London.”

Stewart added, “The Government makes a big deal of Noise Action Day. It spends a lot of money to tell people to turn their music down and stop their dogs barking. But all the time it is planning to make the noise climate worse for people living under the Heathrow flight path. Very much a case of don’t do as I do, but do as I say.”

Selected quotes from the Mayoral candidates:

Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat: “The Liberal Democrats remain totally opposed to any further development at Heathrow. The residents who live under the flight path have suffered enough.”

Darren Johnson, Green Party: “The Green Party campaigns to bring about an end to airport expansion and action to make rail cheaper than flying.”

Ken Livingstone: “The Mayor opposes a third runway. He does not believe it is acceptable to Londoners.”

Steve Norris, Conservative: “Environmental concerns must have a significant influence in any decision over airport expansion. That is why I am against plans for a third runway at Heathrow.”

Notes for Editors

1. HACAN ClearSkies has met with each of the candidates or their representatives and has had written and verbal statements from each of them covering a 3rd runway, night flights and runway alternation.

2. Noise Action Day is held each year. It is organised by the noise division of the National Society for Clean Air and financially supported by DEFRA (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs).

For further information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957 385650.

High Court says residents are not expected to put up with the ‘fearsome’ noise of Harrier training

Catherine and Darby Dennis are delighted that the High Court says that they are not expected just to put up with the ‘fearsome’ noise of Harrier training from RAF Wittering that blights their lives and home at Walcot Hall, Near Stamford. Walcot is right in line with the runway at Wittering, and Harriers doing circuit training and landing approaches create what the court said “manifestly amounts to a nuisance”.

The Dennis’ went to court after years of getting nowhere with polite complaints to the Ministry of Defence. They claimed that Harrier training ruins the enjoyment of their home and seriously devalues it. The Court has agreed that even if Harrier training must continue at Wittering in the public interest, they must be compensated.

Awarded damages

Contrary to Government claims of a right to create a nuisance because it has gone on for a long time, or because it is in the public interest, MrJustice Buckley said that “selected individuals should not bear the cost of the public benefit”. He has awarded damages based on nuisance, and infringement with human rights, for risk of loss of capital value, loss of business opportunities, and loss of amenity.

Mr and Mrs Dennis say the best news is that the court has warned the MoD that even if compensation is sufficient in relation to Harrier nuisance, they and other residents cannot be expected to put up with the “Future Carrier Borne Aircraft” that is due to replace Harriers in 2012 but may be more than twice as loud. “Maybe after a few more years of Harriers, we will have some relative peace and quiet”, Darby Dennis said. “There is light at the end of the tunnel not just for us, but for other people in similar situations”.

Real legal breakthrough

Richard Buxton, their solicitor, said “this is a real legal breakthrough. It shows that people do not just have to put up with government doing what it likes. The Ministry of Defence says it is convenient for them to operate from Wittering, so it makes lots of sense that they should pay for damage that they cause doing so. It is like the need to pay for fuel for their aeroplanes. It is a cost of doing business”.

Ken Jones of FPDSavills Lincoln, the Dennis’ property adviser, said “after all this time common sense has prevailed to bring some justice to the situation”.

The Court went out of its way to say that the Dennis’ brought the case very reluctantly and have the highest regard for the RAF and what it does.

Contacts

Richard Buxton, solicitor: 01223 328933, Mobile 07900 413762.
Ken Jones, chartered surveyor: 01522 551100, Mobile 07967 555543.

Department for Transport accused of a Del Boy approach to noise measurement

• Under the way the Department measures noise, one Concorde is the equivalent of 120 Boeing 757s.
• This means, now Concorde has retired, 120 extra Boeing 757s a day could use Heathrow without changing the noise contour.

A major new report from HACAN ClearSkies (1) reveals the extent to which government figures underestimate aircraft noise. The Quiet Con alleges that the Department of Transport is preparing for airport expansion in the forthcoming Aviation White Paper in the full knowledge that the way it calculates aircraft noise is misleading.

The Quiet Con reveals that, when measuring noise, the Department for Transport:

• Gives undue weight to the noise of each aircraft passing overhead and not enough weight to the number of planes. This means that, under the Department’s calculations, one Concorde is the equivalent of 120 Boeing 757s. The report argues that for most people, “four hours worth of non-stop Boeing 757s at a rate of one every two minutes is very much worse to have to endure than one extremely loud Concorde, followed by 3 hours 58 minutes relief.”

• Doesn’t reflect the real level of noise people experience when a plane passes overhead. This is because the Department includes the quiet times of the day, and the quiet days of the year, when averaging out the noise.

• Refuses to measure low-frequency noise — the rumble and roar of an aircraft. The report’s researchers found that, when low-frequency noise is taken into account, a plane passing overhead can be around 8 decibels louder.

• Underestimates the level at which people start to get annoyed by aircraft noise. The Department for Transport argues that ‘the onset of community annoyance’ sets in when noise averages out at 57 decibels. This would mean that, in the Department’s eyes, aircraft noise is not a problem in places such as Putney, Fulham and Battersea. The World Health Organisation maintains that annoyance starts at around 50 decibels and serious annoyance at 54 decibels.

HACAN ClearSkies argues that the Department for Transport is likely to be in breach of the EU Noise Directive if it does not alter the way it measures noise (2).

The Quiet Con makes a number of recommendations (3). These include adopting the approach used in Sydney. In addition to averaging out noise, the Sydney authorities produce maps showing the actual noise level of planes along the flight path together with figures of the number of planes passing over any one area.

John Stewart, the Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “The Department for Transport has a Del Boy approach to measuring aircraft noise. Our report shows that its methods are flawed and biased. But they give the impression that Government wants to get across: that the noise climate is better than it really is. The Aviation White Paper, which may propose a 3rd runway at Heathrow, will be fatally flawed unless the Department begins to measure aircraft noise accurately.”

Notes for Editors

1. The report, The Quiet Con, was produced by HACAN ClearSkies with the assistance of FANG (the Federation of Aircraft Noise Groups) and the UK Noise Association. It was written by Richard Hendin, a former pilot with the Royal Navy, with technical input from Dr David Manley BSc Hons, F InstP, MIEE, MIOA, an independent acoustician and expert in low-freqency noise.

2. See report’s summary for more details.

3. Key recommendations are listed in the summary of the report.

For further information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957 385650.

Residents would prefer the ‘freedom to sleep’

HACAN ClearSkies, representing residents under the Heathrow flight path, has branded the Freedom to Fly lobby group, to be launched on Monday (1), as nothing more than front organisation to enable the industry to campaign for a big expansion of aviation regardless of the social and environmental consequences.. The new group, which is to be headed-up by John Prescott’s former right-hand man Joe Irvin (2), is expected to argue that if aviation is not allowed to expand people on lower incomes will not have the freedom to fly open to others. (3). It is also expected to reveal survey figures to show that most people want to fly more often (4).

John Stewart, the Chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said, “If all Freedom to Fly tells us at its launch is that most people like flying and want more airports, the whole thing will be a damp squib. To tell us that people like cheap flights is no new dramatic revelation. What this new lobby group fails to address is the effect that an expansion of aviation will have on the people living under the flight paths to airports and the damage aviation is doing to our wider environment. Our members are more concerned about the freedom to sleep than the freedom to fly”.

Stewart added, “The Freedom to Fly campaign is the response of an industry under pressure to clean up its act. In recent years it has been heavily criticised by residents’ groups and environmental organisations concerned about noise and pollution. Freedom to Fly claims it is interested in campaigning for the continued right of ordinary people to fly around the world at low prices. But that is simply a smokescreen to allow the industry to carry on expanding. Freedom to Fly is a propaganda organisation for the aviation industry masquerading behind a concern for the rights of ordinary citizens. It has very little to do with equity. The appointment of Joe Irvin to front the organisation once again raises questions about the close relationship between the Labour Government and the aviation industry.”

Notes to Editors

1. Freedom to Fly is to be launched on Monday 14th January at 8.00 for 8.30am at the offices of the CBI at Centrepoint, Charing Cross Rd.. Its backers include BAA, BA, Virgin Atlantic, the Confederation of British Industry, The Transport and General Workers Union and the British Tourist Authority.

2. Joe Irvin was John Prescott’s political adviser for several years until he stood down last Summer. Previously, he was head of research at the Transport and General Workers Union.

3. The Freedom to Fly campaign is expected to argue that if residents and environmental groups get their way, people on low-incomes will be denied the freedom to fly open to their better-off counterparts.

   The equity implications of more expensive air travel are often raised. HACAN ClearSkies counter-arguments would be:

   • The poorest in society would not be losers from a clampdown on aviation. Frequent air travel is not an option for the least well off, and probably never will be. They are more concerned with finding the money to pay the local bus fare than thumbing through the brochures of Ryanair or Easy Jet.

   • Leisure travel by air is so cheap at present that it would need to go up enormously before people would need to cut flying out altogether.

   • Any equity ‘losses’ need to be balanced against the equity ‘gains’ that would result from more expensive air travel: the improved quality of life for some of the very poorest in the UK living under aircraft flight paths.

   • Curbing air travel would have environmental gains for poor people in developing countries as it is often those countries that are the big losers from global warming, to which aviation is becoming a major contributor

   • The backers of the new group promise “dramatic new polling results on the public’s attitude to flying and airport development.”

For more information contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957 385650