Contact us
Visit CPRE.org
Donate
Aircraft noise - important debate
Campaign group Gatwick Obviously Not has been lobbying Gatwick to fully implement the findings of the Arrivals Review .
This set out 23 practical steps to improve noise, the key recommendations are:
- To reduce the number of aircraft holding over land
- To improve use of continuous descent arrivals which would generate significantly less noise, and increase the sequencing and spacing of arrivals
- To accelerate the modification of the Airbus A320 family of aircraft to reduce the whining noise they make during the approach phase of flight
- To establish an independently chaired noise management board to oversee joint strategies to deal with noise around the airport
- To develop a comprehensive online complaint management system
Now four MPs have written to National Air traffic services and the Civil aviation Authority to ensure these are implemented in full. See the letter here: http://www.gatwickobviouslynot.org/
Plus Tom Tugendhat MP has secured a Debate in Westminster Hall (in the Palace of Westminster) tomorrow (Wednesday 20th April) at 9.30am on ‘The effect of aircraft noise on local communities’:
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/commons/speakers-office/wadjourns/
This is all good news for communities in Kent who have been blighted by aircraft noise and Gatwick should work fully with NATC and the CAA to ensure everything is done to alleviate this.
Gatwick is running a community engagement plan – find out how you can get involved here:
http://www.gatwickairport.com/business-community/aircraft-noise/airspace-overview/arrivals-review/
April 19th 2016
- A number of important documents have yet to emerge. For example, a rigorous transport plan and a finalised air-quality assessment. The latter is critical given that allocations at Teynham will feed extra traffic into AQMAs.
- There seems to be no coherent plan for infrastructure delivery – a key component of the plan given the allocations being proposed near the already crowded Junction 7.
- There seems to have been little or no cooperation with neighbouring boroughs or even parish councils within Swale itself.
The removal of a second consultation might have been understandable if this final version of the plan were similar to that being talked about at the beginning of the consultation process. It is, however, radically different in the following ways:
- There has been a major shift in the balance of housing allocations, away from the west of the borough over to the east, especially around the historic town of Faversham. This is a move that raises many concerns.
- A new large allocation, with accompanying A2 bypass, has appeared around Teynham and Lynsted, to which we are objecting.
- Housing allocations in the AONB around Neames Forstal that were judged “unsuitable” by the council’s own officers have now appeared as part of the housing numbers.
- Most of the housing allocations being proposed are on greenfield sites, many of them on Grade 1 agricultural land – a point to which we are strongly objecting.
Concerns about the rush to submit the plan
The haste with which the plan is being prepared is especially worrying given the concentration of housing in Faversham. If the town is to take a large amount of new housing, it is imperative that the policies concerning the area are carefully worked out to preserve, as far as possible, the unique nature of the town. The rush to submit the plan is likely to prove detrimental.
As Swale does not have a five-year land housing supply, it is open to speculative development proposals, many of which would run counter to the ideas contained in the current plan. Some are already appearing. This is a common situation, and one that, doubtless, is a reason behind Swale’s haste.
Our overriding fear, however, is that this emphasis on haste is ultimately going to prove counterproductive. This is because it is our view that the plan, in its current form, is unlikely to pass independent examination. We are urging Swale to listen to and act upon the comments being made about the plan and to return the plan to the council with appropriate modifications before submitting it to the Secretary of State.
Essentially, this means treating the current consultation not as the final one but as the ‘lost’ second consultation.
The consultation ends on Friday 30 April and we strongly urge residents to make their opinions known if they have not already done so.
Further information
