Sharing Flight Paths: the classic call of the Nimby or a desperate plea for help?

HACAN is open 365 days a year and every single day we get emails from people driven to distraction by aircraft noise.  Every. Single. Day.  People in despair.  Two from this weekend’s batch: 

“I haven’t slept without earplugs for over a year and now spend 2 nights away from home each week now just to try to sleep…”

“Have we lost the fight? Do we always now have to have this assault on our senses? Will we ever get respite?”

And many of these people didn’t move close to an international airport.  Most live over 15 miles from Heathrow.  In fact we get far fewer complaints from West London.  Over generations, I suspect, many have learnt to live with the noise.  And some of course benefit from runway alternation when the planes landing over West London switch runways at 3pm to allow a break from the noise.

The complaints come from Clapham, Brockley, Vauxhall – places that can get as many as 40 planes an hour, often through much the day.  And from people living under the take-off routes as they have become more concentrated: Hanwell, Staines, Ealing.

The call of all these residents for relief as been branded as Nimby in some quarters.  I would strongly argue it is not. None of them are wanting all the planes to be shifted elsewhere; simply for the noise to be shared around on the basis that, if this is done well, nobody’s life should be turned upside down in the way theirs has been.

When I campaigned against road building in London in the 1980s some Dulwich residents, faced with the prospect of the South Circular outside their homes being widened, advocated a new highway was built through Brixton and Peckham.  That’s Nimbyism.  That’s parcelling up the misery and exporting it elsewhere.  Precisely what the overflown residents are not calling for.

HACAN has worked hard over the last few years to promote to not Nimbyism, but respite.  We are pleased to say that respite is now official Government policy and that Heathrow Airport supports the concept.  We are engaging with Heathrow to find ways in which it can work for both the airport and residents.

London City Airport, by contrast, is planning to concentrate their routes – http://www.londoncityairport.com/londonairspacemanagement.  Not that they have gone out of their way to tell anybody.  Information has simply been put on their website and given to their supine consultative committee.

HACAN has worked hard to publicise their proposals.  Last week the story hit the front page of the South London Press and featured heavily in the East London newspapers.  Tonight we are holding a meeting in Wanstead Library which is expected to be packed with residents and local councillors.  It will be addressed by GLA members Roger Evans and Murad Qureshi.  GLA members and councillors south of the river also plan to write to the airport with their concerns.

It’s a battle that HACAN is fighting to win.  We will be questioning whether the consultation has been conducted properly and indeed whether the absence of respite from London City’s proposals means they maybe flouting Government policy.  And we are doing because sharing is fairer.  That’s not Nimbyism.

Dear London City,

Your flight path proposals will have a profound effect – for the worse – on tens of thousands of Londoners…..and you are simply not telling them.  You are planning to concentrate the planes using the airport on narrow corridors, meaning that the unlucky communities will suffer all the noise.

It is deeply inequitable.  It reminds me what has happened on the roads.  These days traffic noise these is largely a main road problem.  This is because, over the years, it has been diverted from ‘residential’ roads on to main roads.  It has been concentrated on these main roads.  

I wrote in my book Why Noise Matters, published by Earthscan in 2011, “The policy in the UK, and in many other European countries, has been to direct through-traffic away from so-called ‘residential’ roads on to ‘main’ roads.  I would suggest this is deeply inequitable, made more so by the fact that it is the people living on main roads who are less likely to own and drive cars or be able to move away.  They are victims of other people’s noise.”

And now you are proposing to do the same with your planes.  I know you are arguing that the changes are not significant because the planned flight paths are not noticeably different from the current routes.  Tell that to Bow, Leytonstone, Wansted, Catford, Brixton and Vauxhall!  And the other areas that will be under the concentrated flight paths.

Of course, we know you are not going to tell them anything.  You’ve said to us you will not be holding public meetings, or even leafleting the areas.  Your current consultation brings a whole new meaning to the word ‘minimalist’.  You have informed your consultative committee (which you must know is widely seen as one of the weakest and least responsive in the country).  And have put your plans on your website: http://www.londoncityairport.com/content/pdf/LCY-LAMP-Consultation-Document.pdf.   But is thought they you may not even have informed some of the local authorities affected about the proposals.

Now I suspect I know what you are thinking: that HACAN is ‘anti-airport’ and is simply jumping on these proposed flight path changes to have a go at the airport.  But that is to miss the point:  the issue here is much deeper than what anybody thinks about the airport.  It is about fairness, equity, treating people properly; concepts that existed long before you began your short life just over 25 years ago.  

You are badly failing the fairness test.  You may also be acting contrary to government policy which suggests airports seek to give respite to communities which are overflown.

I suspect you will argue that your minimalist consultation is doing all that the Civil Aviation Authority, which is overseeing the process, requires you to do.  We’ve already raised this with the CAA and will do so again unless you start informing people what’s in store for them.  I urge you to do so.

John Stewart

Chair HACAN East 

Fight Path Consultation Letter of objection to London City Airport

London City Airport is planning to concentrate its flight paths over certain areas.  But it is not telling anybody.  The areas particularly in the line of fire are Bow, Leytonstone, Wansted and Colliers Row, Dagenham, Hornchurch,  Catford, Dulwich, Brixton, Stockwell and Vauxhall.  It is deeply inequitable.

Here is a letter you can email to the airport: lamp@londoncityairport.com.  Feel free to adapt it as you wish and to encourage others to also email in.

I strongly object to the way you intend to concentrate the flight paths in and out of London City Airport over particular areas.  It is creating noise ghettos and is deeply unfair.

I also object to the fact that you are refusing to tell directly the communities that will be affected what is in store for them.  You are holding no public meeting and are doing no leafleting.  Most people don’t even know what is on your website.

If you want to read the full consultation it is at http://www.londoncityairport.com/londonairspacemanagement.   It started on 4th September and runs until 27th November 2014.  

For more detail read HACAN’s open letter to the airport – http://www.hacaneast.org.uk/?p=493 – and our blog:  http://www.hacaneast.org.uk/?p=491 

The key consultation document ishttp://www.londoncityairport.com/content/pdf/LCY-LAMP-Consultation-Document.pdf.  The maps are indistinct but the main ones to look at are on:

Page 22.  which shows how places like Bow, Leytonstone, Wansted and Colliers Row would be impacted by take-offs on the days the west wind blows (about 75% of the time in a typical year)

Page 23 which shows how places like Dagenham and Hornchurch would be affected by take-offs when an east wind is blowing

Page 33 which shows how places like Catford, Dulwich, Brixton, Stockwell and Vauxhall will be affected by landings during an east wind

Recent events have illustrated how much flight paths matter.  As Mark Hookham put it in today’s Sunday Times “low-flying aeroplanes are causing uproar in affluent commuter towns and idyllic villages across Britain as airports test new flight paths” – Suburbia in revolt at new f light paths

Unless you are a Harmondsworth resident whose home is threatened by a third runway or an Indian farmer whose land is taken for a new runway, flight paths are what matter to local people.  If planes could land and take off perpendicularly most local objections would fade away.

Flight paths are the motorways of the sky.  Building new ones or doubling the traffic on existing ones will always bring a flood of complaints.  It happened in Ascot and Teddington in recent months.  Eighteen years ago it happened in Brixton, Stockwell and Clapham when landing procedures were tightened up.  Aviation Minister Glenda Jackson told the House of Commons (28/10/97): “when the airport is busy, which is for much of the day, aircraft will join the ILS [the final descent path] further east over Battersea, Brixton or Lewisham.”  Ms Jackson, the least sympathetic of recent aviation ministers, refused to meet with residents.

One resident wrote at the time: “I’ve lived in Clapham North at the same address for almost 20 years.  Until 3 years ago one hardly noticed the planes, apart from Concorde, of course.  Then in summer ’95, as if someone somewhere had flicked a switch, the occasional drone became a remorseless whine.  It was like an aerial motorway, open from early morning till at least mid-evening.”

And flight paths are going to change again.  This time driven by the new computer technology which enables planes to be guided more precisely when landing and taking off.  The industry believes this will allow it to make more efficient use of airspace, thus saving on fuel, cutting emissions and reducing delays.

The American airports have gone for the easy option and concentrated flights on a very few number of routes.  This has resulted in big protests in places like Chicago:  http://www.aviationpros.com/news/11681350/noise-complaints-about-ohare-skyrocket  London City Airport, to its shame, is proposing to do the same thing:  http://www.hacaneast.org.uk/2014/09/campaigners-call-on-caa-to-suspend-consultation-on-city-airport-flight-paths/ 

I believe concentration is indefensible in built-up areas.  It is asking the chosen communities to bear all the pain.  And, whenever surveys are done, they show that people prefer the flight paths to be shared, so that everybody gets a break – some respite – from the noise.

That doesn’t mean piling the pressure on Ascot so that other areas can get some relief.  What it does mean is finding a balance so that the fewest number people possible are truly disturbed by the noise.

I would argue the current situation across huge swathes of London and the Home Counties is untenable and chance can only be a good thing.  40 planes an hour an overfly the Oval Cricket Ground or Clapham Common.  This video of Vauxhall, 17 miles from Heathrow, gives a flavour of the disturbance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXf8o_khz8s.  A report commissioned by HACAN from the consultants Bureau Veritas found that in Ruskin Park in Camberwell, almost 20 miles from the airport, “aircraft noise dominates the local environment”.  And many under the take-off flight paths are experiencing a volume of planes they never imagined possible twenty years ago.

Heathrow estimates that, if they get it right, most communities could get relief from the noise 50% or even 75% of the time.  In an attempt to get an answer which works for the industry and for as many residents as possible, Heathrow is doing more pre-planning and conducting more experiments than any other airport in the world before it puts its final proposal out to public consultation.

The devil will be in the detail and there will be areas where ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ – maybe parts of West London which enjoys runway alternation.  And real care should be taken to avoid the very few ‘oasis’ which still exist that are plane-free.  But there is a fighting chance to get it right and banish the dark era Glenda Jackson helped usher in nearly 20 years ago.  Ms Jackson is standing down at the next General Election

For many people whose lives we changed forever when Glenda Jackson authorised operational changes twenty years ago, the possibility of respite is the first glimmer of hope they have had for nearly two decades.  A  

Heathrow, at the time, were as unhelpful as Glenda Jackson.  Twenty years on, flight paths are about to change again.  I have to say for most people, (certainly outside West London where residents get a half day’s break from the noise when planes switch runways at 3pm on landing), view the possibility of change as the first glimmer of light they have seen for nearly two decades.

Certainly the current situation across huge swathes of London and the Home Counties in untenable.  40 planes an hour can overfly the Oval Cricket Ground or Clapham Common.  This video of Vauxhall, 17 miles from Heathrow, gives a flavour of the disturbance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXf8o_khz8s.  A report commissioned by HACAN from the consultants Bureau Veritas found that in Ruskin Park in Camberwell, almost 20 miles from the airport, “aircraft noise dominates the local environment”. 

The challenge for Heathrow and air traffic control now is to use the changes that will be happening to benefit as many residents as possible.  The Americam airports have used the new computer-technology which is driving the changes to concentrate flights on a very few number of routes, thus creating noise ghettos.  London City Airport in its current consultation is proposing to do the same:  http://www.hacaneast.org.uk/2014/09/campaigners-call-on-caa-to-suspend-consultation-on-city-airport-flight-paths/