Even if you are a big fan of aviation, you’d be hard-pushed to back the proposed new airport outside Nantes in west France.

The huge numbers which turned up last weekend (9^th and 10^th July) to two days of protest highlighted once again why the plan to build the airport has become the most controversial environmental project in France.

It is causing the Government of Francois Hollande a major headache.  There are over 200 groups across Belgium and France which back the opponents of the airport and which carry out demonstrations in their own areas in support of them.  There were violent scenes a few years ago when the French Police tried to evict some of the thousands of young activists who are camped in Le Zad on the site of the proposed new airport. 

Hollande tried to get round his problem by calling a (non-binding) regional referendum this summer.  People were asked to decide whether they wanted to retain the existing one-runway airport close to the city or back the new two-runway airport over 17 kilometres outside Nantes.  Hundreds of thousands of people voted.  The vote went 55% to 45% in favour of the new airport.

But, far from settling the issue as Holland had hoped, the breakdown of the result has highlighted the pointlessness of the new airport.  The city of Nantes split 50/50 but the communities in the city close to the existing airport plus those under its flight path voted to keep it.  They wanted to keep the jobs it provides and signalled that the flights to the half-empty airport are not a problem.  They vote in favour of the new airport was swung by communities 20 – 50 kilometres north of Nantes, some of whom felt the new airport might provide them with jobs and others who believed it would be easier for them to get to than the exiting airport on the other side of the city.

So this is a major new airport, Nantes International, being proposed on prime farmland not to relieve congestion at the existing airport, nor in response to demands for noise relief for those under existing flight paths, nor even because Nantes is in the middle of nowhere; it is just two hours by train to Paris.

The justification for the new airport seems to be that it will act as a catalyst for economic growth in the west of France.  Plonked in the middle of nowhere, the idea is will serve the surrounding towns, Nantes, Angers and Rennes, each of the many kilometers from the airport.  But there are real doubts whether there are sufficient people in these medium-sized towns to sustain such a project.  Almost certainly, any realistic assessment of the market would rule out the airport.  And the links to these towns from it are unplanned.  There may or may not be a rail link to Nantes.  Rennes and Angers would be served by coaches!  The campaigners claim that the airport has more to do with the egos of the local politicians than theneeds of the local area.  

The Government needs to start building the airport by February or the planning permission it got five years ago falls.  That means it would need to start evicting the environmental activists in Le Zad and the local farmers in the autumn.  It recognizes that, given the scale of the opposition across France and beyond, it will require the army rather than the police to do so.  It may be a battle it cannot win. 

But you don’t need to be an anti-aviation activist to be against this new airport.  

Here are some thoughts on why HACAN is backing respite.

People under the landing flight path in West London have had respite since the 1970s.  Planes landing at Heathrow switch runways at 3pm to give people a half day’s break from the noise.  Our members in West London tell us that this is what makes life bearable for them and, in the past, have taken to the streets to defend it.

For as long as I’ve been involved with HACAN (late 1990s), people under the approach path west of the airport – in places like Windsor – have lobbied for the end of the Cranford Agreement so they could get rid of all-day flying and get the respite enjoyed by West London.  With Cranford coming to an end, that will happen.

For almost as long, people in South East London have been calling for some respite from the noise.  Since 1996 when the point at which many more planes were guided on to their final approach path several miles further east than previously areas like Peckham, Clapham and the Oval rarely get less than 20 planes an hour and can get over 40. (It also applied to places like Henley to the west of the airport).  It is not pure concentration.  There is still an element of dispersal, particularly the further east you go.  But, judging from the emails and phone calls HACAN has got for well over a decade, people don’t like it.  The overwhelming demand is for periods of respite – predicable breaks from the noise – even if that means concentration at other times.  HACAN reflects this view in calling for respite.

I accept that the experience of some people under the departure routes is different.  For many years take-offs were dispersed across the Noise Preferential Route (NPRs) which have been in place since the 1960s.  Over the last decade or so aircraft technology enabled planes to be concentrated more and more on the centre-line of the NPRs.  Again, reflecting the views of our members and supporters, has always opposed this concentration.

Its impact became more apparent to more people during the 2014 trials when certain areas, like Teddington and Ascot, were bombarded with concentrated routes.  Living under them was sheer hell for many people and, even though the trials have ended, the experience has lead people to call for dispersal of the departures.

The other question which must be faced is whether the new technology makes some element of concentration inevitable for both landings and departures.  The technology allows for aircraft to be guided much more precisely.  It would enable concentrated routes to be introduced at every airport.  That would save the airlines money and bring some relatively small reduction in the amount of CO2 emitted by each aircraft.  It would also reduce the number of air traffic controllers that would be required.  And, if coordinated across continents (as is beginning to happen), it would make more effective use of airspace.

Given these advantages to the industry, there is worldwide momentum to it happening.  It will drive the UK Government’s consultation on airspace changes later this year.  As campaigners, we have to ask ourselves:  can we stop this (even if we wanted to)?  In my view, it would require local residents to protest at airports around the world on a scale never before seen.  I am not at all sure that is going to happen.

The alternative is to embrace the new technology and ensure it works in favour of residents as well as the industry.  That has not happened airports in America where brutally concentrated routes were introduced.  Under pressure from residents a lot of the airports are being forced to row back and introduce an element of respite.  But the principle of precision navigation remains; it is simply being accompanied by respite.

Nearly a decade ago HACAN saw the danger of what could happen if pure concentration was introduced.  We therefore started a long, strategic lobbying campaign to forestall it by ensuring the respite became an option engrained in Government policy and put in practice in a meaningful way at Heathrow.  We also knew from the emails we received from members and supporters who were getting dozens of planes an hour that they believed the new technology could work for them if it shared the burden.

And by sharing the burden they did not mean putting it to new areas.  Let me give an example of how it could work in South East London.  Aircraft could go over the Bermondsey, Vauxhall close to the river for a third of the day; the central area of Peckham and Stockwell for another third; and over Brixton Hill to the south for the final third of the day.  All areas currently overflown.  I stress this is just an example.  But, it was feasible, so many residents tell us it would improve their lives immeasurably.  Some tell us that it would be the difference between staying where they are moving house.

Of course all this has to be tested to see if it is practicable.  And also how far apart flight paths need to be to provide meaningful respite for the noise.  That is why we are backing Heathrow’s decision to commission an independent study into what respite could look like.  Heathrow, I believe, want to get future flight paths (and flight paths will change with or without a third runway) to work for both the industry and residents.  That is our position also.

Jock Lowe, the former Concorde pilot, who is heading up the Heathrow Hub bid, has promoting innovative curved approaches to Heathrow.  They have real potential to increase the amount of respite any one community can enjoy.  Some in the industry have cast doubts about the feasibility of all Jock’s ideas but few deny that they will be part of the mix in the airspace change that are to come. 

Of course meaningful respite for departures is going to be difficult.  The existing Noise Preferential Routes are narrow.  Creating new ones would be controversial.  The industry may need to accept an element of dispersal.  We hope the Heathrow-commissioned study – the first of its kind in the world – will throw up feasible options.

Of course, respite is not the whole answer.  Heights of aircraft are important.  Good insulation can help.  But, given the new technology now available to the industry and the inevitability of precision navigation technology I feel that meaningful respite will be essential to protect residents.  Done well, it could improve the current situation for many communities.  A lot of them a banking on it.     

We have published this letter to us in the form of a blog as it highlights a key point that has been made to us in an increasing number of emails and letters; that, in focusing on opposition to a third runway in our campaigning, we are in danger of neglecting measures, such as respite, needed to assist people currently suffering from the noise.

Dear HACAN,

We like what you do.   We don’t like the sound of a third runway.  But we are worried that the focus you are putting on a the third runway in your campaigning is obscuring the fact something urgently needs to be done for people like us who are bombarded right now by the noise of planes landing at Heathrow.

To be brutally honest, a third runway is not our main concern.  It is over a decade away. And, to be utterly frank, if it meant an improvement to our current situation we would welcome it.

We all live in South East London. We met at the Oval watching cricket and got chatting not so much about the number of runs on the scoreboard but more about the number of planes going overhead.  Sometimes there were over 40 an hour.  We all live within about a two mile radius of the Oval.

Some of us have moved in over the last few years; others have been in the area for over 30 years. None of us thought to ask about planes when we moved in. We are almost 20 miles from Heathrow.

Those of us who have been here for many years began to see a change in the late 1990s. We have since learnt from the useful briefing sheets you have produced that it was around that time that more planes starting joining their final approach path in SE London rather than SW London as they had done previously.  We became the new neighbours of Heathrow.

We note from posts on twitter and facebook we are not alone in having our lives ruined by this constant noise. Some of our neighbours have moved away to escape it. But many people can’t, particularly if you a renting in one of the many council estates in the area.

We appreciate the huge efforts HACAN has made to put respite on the agenda. That is what we want: a predicable period of relief from the noise where we know we can enjoy our homes, parks and gardens without the fear of the next plane roaring overhead.  Where we can watch the cricket to nothing more than the sound of the bat and ball and the roar of the crowd.

Please make this a central part of your campaigning.  What about ‘rallies for respite’?  We’d be there.  Even worth missing the cricket for!

You may begin to see why the campaigning against the third runway doesn’t resonate with us.  We understand why it is so important to people who will lose their homes and don’t want the compensation they would get. We can see why it is so critical to those people who would be under a new flight path for the first time.  We ‘get’ that some people oppose it on climate change grounds.

But, though it may be heretical to say so, if a third runway could bring us a better deal than we have now, we’d go for it. And we don’t believe that is necessarily fantasy. We have followed what the ex-Concorde pilot Jock Lowe has been saying about curved flight paths. They could be used in a way that allowed flight paths to be shared much more fairly.

Are we being NIMBY? We hope not and we don’t think we are. HACAN, you have written eloquently about the unfairness of ‘noise ghettos’ in the past. You may even have coined the phrase! All we are saying is that noise ghettos shouldn’t exist and that we currently live in one.

So, please HACAN, as well as your Rallies against the Runway, let’s have a Rally for Respite. It’s only cricket after all!

John Stewart, HACAN chair responds:

In the autumn the Government will be consulting on the principles that should inform any airspace changes (nationally).  It is within this framework that Heathrow will make changes to its flight paths, whether it operates as a two-runway or three runway airport.  Heathrow has commissioned a major independent study to find out what meaningful respite will look like.  We have backed the study and, through the Heathrow Noise Forum, were closely involved in the preparatory work for the study.  It is the first of its kind in the world and will be published next year.

Whatever the decision on the third runway, flight paths will be a major focus of our work over the next period.  This will include campaigning for respite as well as pressing for the best possible operational practices such as steeper ascent and descent pathways.  Let’s rally together for respite!