Hargrave Parish Council
17^th June 2008 TCN Consultation NATS Freepost Nat 227750 Reading RG1 4BR. Dear Sirs NATS TCN Consultation/Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and North Essex I am writing on behalf of Hargrave Parish Council in response to the proposed changes outlined in the NATS TCN consultation document. Hargrave appears to be directly under the exit route from the proposed Stansted western arrivals hold and also beneath the proposed Luton arrivals. Within Hargrave considerable concern has been expressed and following a village meeting a petition objecting to the proposals was circulated. A copy of the petition is enclosed and as you will see it has 118 signatures this is 92% residents approached who agreed to sign. The result quite clearly demonstrates the strength of opposition to the proposals and we as Parish Council support and endorse the result. The key objections are as follows: Relative Noise and Noise Perception - Hargrave is a particularly quiet rural village (as recognised in CPRE’s tranquillity maps) and people have chosen to live in and visit the area to enjoy this quality. The lack of other ambient noise would mean the frequent disturbance from aircraft would be intolerable. Given that many people have chosen to live in Hargrave due to its tranquillity they are likely to perceive and be disturbed by the noise pollution more than others living in less tranquil areas. The consultation document contains very poor analysis of noise. It details worst case scenarios but gives no assessment of likely impacts. It makes no assessment of relative noise and does not appear to consider the fact that noise will be heard over much larger areas in tranquil areas. Carbon Emissions and Air Quality - The maps in the consultation document suggest that aircraft leaving the Stansted western hold area will fly directly over Hargrave at heights of 4000ft upwards. There is no evidence as to why the exit route is placed as it is or why planes would need to fly so low. The dog leg in the exit route is particularly concerning as it appears to require aircraft to fly unnecessary miles and thus consume more fuel and emit extra carbon emissions. This area of Suffolk has good air quality and no evidence has been put forward regarding the impact on local air quality. Flawed consultation The document does not allow discussion on alternative locations for the hold. The document contains no field-based evidence from potentially impacted areas and appears to rely on desk based analysis. This does not allow sufficient analysis for a proposal with an impact of this magnitude. Parish Councils have not been duly informed of the consultation and therefore affected communities have been given little time to digest and respond to the implications of the proposals. The TCN consultation specifically asks whether direct flights are supported. However, the document gives no detail on how, when and where these will operate. In principle, the parish would support direct flights that would minimise carbon impacts and ensure the burden of the noise pollution is spread. The Parish Council of Hargrave would like the following questions to be answered: 1. Why is the Stansted western holding area indicated as having a 4000ft lower level? (This appears to considerably lower than other holding areas.) 2. What factors are behind the exit route from the Stansted western holding area? (The route appears to be too long and require unnecessary miles of flying). Where is the waypoint for aircraft for the holds? (This key information is missing from the consultation document.) 3. How will the potential conflict with USAF aircraft that fly over Hargrave be dealt with? 4. Will there be an environmental impact assessment (EIA) that would include a field-based assessment of the impact of the proposals? 5. Why have holds over the sea and over existing noisy areas such as the M11/A11/A14 corridor not been considered? 6. The proposals have been put together to meet the growth in airport traffic at Luton and Stansted. Given recent figures show a downturn in demand would it not be sensible to delay implementation of the proposals until absolutely necessary? In conclusion the Parish Council of Hargrave wishes to strongly object to the proposals as put forward in the NATS TCN consultation document. Yours faithfully, David Taylor Chairman Hargrave Parish Council Cc: The CAA (Head of Business Management) Richard Spring MP

Hargrave Parish Council

17^th June 2008

TCN Consultation

NATS

Freepost Nat 227750

Reading

RG1 4BR.

Dear Sirs

NATS TCN Consultation/Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and North Essex

I am writing on behalf of Hargrave Parish Council in response to the proposed changes outlined in the NATS TCN consultation document. Hargrave appears to be directly under the exit route from the proposed Stansted western arrivals hold and also beneath the proposed Luton arrivals. Within Hargrave considerable concern has been expressed and following a village meeting a petition objecting to the proposals was circulated. A copy of the petition is enclosed and as you will see it has 118 signatures this is 92% residents approached who agreed to sign. The result quite clearly demonstrates the strength of opposition to the proposals and we as Parish Council support and endorse the result.

The key objections are as follows:

Relative Noise and Noise Perception - Hargrave is a particularly quiet rural village (as recognised in CPRE’s tranquillity maps) and people have chosen to live in and visit the area to enjoy this quality. The lack of other ambient noise would mean the frequent disturbance from aircraft would be intolerable. Given that many people have chosen to live in Hargrave due to its tranquillity they are likely to perceive and be disturbed by the noise pollution more than others living in less tranquil areas.

The consultation document contains very poor analysis of noise. It details worst case scenarios but gives no assessment of likely impacts. It makes no assessment of relative noise and does not appear to consider the fact that noise will be heard over much larger areas in tranquil areas.

Carbon Emissions and Air Quality - The maps in the consultation document suggest that aircraft leaving the Stansted western hold area will fly directly over Hargrave at heights of 4000ft upwards. There is no evidence as to why the exit route is placed as it is or why planes would need to fly so low. The dog leg in the exit route is particularly concerning as it appears to require aircraft to fly unnecessary miles and thus consume more fuel and emit extra carbon emissions. This area of Suffolk has good air quality and no evidence has been put forward regarding the impact on local air quality.

Flawed consultation

The document does not allow discussion on alternative locations for the hold.
The document contains no field-based evidence from potentially impacted areas and appears to rely on desk based analysis. This does not allow sufficient analysis for a proposal with an impact of this magnitude.
Parish Councils have not been duly informed of the consultation and therefore affected communities have been given little time to digest and respond to the implications of the proposals.

The TCN consultation specifically asks whether direct flights are supported. However, the document gives no detail on how, when and where these will operate. In principle, the parish would support direct flights that would minimise carbon impacts and ensure the burden of the noise pollution is spread.

The Parish Council of Hargrave would like the following questions to be answered:

1. Why is the Stansted western holding area indicated as having a 4000ft lower level? (This appears to considerably lower than other holding areas.)

2. What factors are behind the exit route from the Stansted western holding area? (The route appears to be too long and require unnecessary miles of flying). Where is the waypoint for aircraft for the holds? (This key information is missing from the consultation document.)

3. How will the potential conflict with USAF aircraft that fly over Hargrave be dealt with?

4. Will there be an environmental impact assessment (EIA) that would include a field-based assessment of the impact of the proposals?

5. Why have holds over the sea and over existing noisy areas such as the M11/A11/A14 corridor not been considered?

6. The proposals have been put together to meet the growth in airport traffic at Luton and Stansted. Given recent figures show a downturn in demand would it not be sensible to delay implementation of the proposals until absolutely necessary?

In conclusion the Parish Council of Hargrave wishes to strongly object to the proposals as put forward in the NATS TCN consultation document.

Yours faithfully,

David Taylor

Chairman Hargrave Parish Council

Cc: The CAA (Head of Business Management)

Richard Spring MP