Meeting At Kirtling to Discuss Proposals for a New Flight Stack in Our Area for Stansted Aircraft from Spring 2009

Speakers : Jim Paice             MP for East and South Cambs

                    Vicky Ford            South Cambs District Council

                    Jane Midwood     Suffolk County Council

                    Mathew Shuter     Cambs   County Council

                    Carl Poole            East Cambs District Council and

                                                  Chairman East Cambs South Neighbourhood Panel

                    Dick Histed          South Suffolk Air Traffic Action Group(SSATAG)

                    Peter Gowan        Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE)

                    Peter Stevens      Bury St Edmunds Council

                   Richard Fletcher   Newmarket Town Council

                                    ………………………………………………….

The Meeting was attended by the above speakers and 63 representatives from parish councils within the South and West Suffolk areas and from South and East Cambs.

The National Air Traffic Service (NATS) was commissioned four years ago to review and make recommendations to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the government for reorganising the stacking flight zones for aircraft using Stansted and Luton Airports. The commission also included review at Heathrow, Northolt and City Airport London. There was a delay in starting the consultation procedure therefore it has been agreed to extend this period until June 19^th 2008.

 NATS have proposed that the stacking zone is moved from Sudbury to two zones. One slightly further North from the present Sudbury zone and a new zone which is situated in the triangle bordered by Newmarket, Haverhill and Bury St Edmunds. Because this is designated a rural area, confirmed by the Council for Protection for Rural England,  aircraft noise will be more noticeable and intrusive. NATS have stated that they have been told to utilize areas with lower population density.

It was noted at the meeting that the population figures quoted were out of date e.g. a quoted population figure of 10,371 is now actually 17,930. 

The noise measurements are averaged over a time period, however individual incidents will be at a higher level than these quoted figures. If a plane passes every two minutes in a tranquil area then there will be a noticeable continual effect.

One of the speakers brought to attention that flight movements appear to be changing already.

It was also noted that not all parishes objected to the proposals so these views must be taken into account when preparing responses.

Newmarket has such strong concerns about the effect of the proposals on the bloodstock industry that they have appointed a team which includes a QC and an ex-air traffic controller. Newmarket is progressing towards becoming a World Heritage Site but the NATS proposal may prevent this. The bloodstock industry’s concerns may mean that the industry has to move elsewhere which would have a detrimental effect on the local economy.

Bury St Edmunds Council originally did not object to the proposals but after representation from rural parishes realised that tranquillity will be ruined and have now sent a strong objection to the proposal

The consultation process has been flawed. There has not been a genuine consultation as parish councillors have not been allowed to attend NATS presentations nor have NATS representatives accepted invitations to local meetings. The time allowed to respond to proposals is too short particularly in comparison with the 4 years allowed for planning.

NATS have a code of practice for customer consultations but this has not been correctly followed.

Matters brought to the attention of participants were that stacking zones in other areas had a raised lower limit in comparison with these zones. This should be queried with NATS. Another point was that night flying is banned at Heathrow, but is allowed at Stansted and at Luton.  This would further increase noise and pollution.

These proposals do not include increase in traffic that might arise from a second Stansted runway. In 2006 there were 18-19 million passengers using Stansted. This rose to 23 million in 2008. Full capacity is 45 million but agreement has been reached to limit this to 35 million. But , if the second runway is approved, then numbers will rise to 65 million. If the runway is used in “mixed mode” this may rise further to 85million.

Heathrow stands at 63 million.

Aircraft take-off causes excess fuel burning forming heavy deposits that may contain carbon dioxide, ozone, nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and soot, thereby causing atmospheric pollution.

Other questions that need to be raised with NATS are –

Modern technology allows flight paths to be accurate within a 300metre width. Is it then possible to vary the flight paths to “spread the pain”?

Is it possible to have the stacking zones designated over the sea?

In conclusion, it was suggested that all parishioners be advised of the proposals and their effect on rural areas.

Letters of objection should be sent by all individuals concerned plus joint letters from Parish Councils.

Letters should be accurate and specific, not using unsubstantiated data and not exaggerating. Get correct technical details if required and use unique arguments.

12.05.2008