NATS 'looking again' at flightpath proposals

Minister confirms that NATS is looking again at flightpath proposals which would mean hundreds of flights a day flying lower over the area from Tring to Berkhamsted. Transport Minister, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, has confirmed that NATS is looking again at flightpath proposals which would mean hundreds of flights a day flying lower over the area from Tring to Berkhamsted.

Speaking in a debate in Westminster, Mr Fitzpatrick confirmed the proposed route changes west of Luton and over the Chilterns was a 'key area of concern' and that NATS were looking in detail at these concerns and 'investigating whether adjustments can be made to accommodate them'.

MP for South West Hertfordshire, David Gauke, urged NATS to reconsider the proposals by amending the proposals to enable them to ascend more quickly. 'I hope and urge that NATS will be prepared to look again for improvements-and if the Minister can influence it in any way I ask him to take whatever action is necessary' commented David in the course of the debate.

David praised the work of the Chiltern Countryside Group in presenting a well-informed and constructive critique of the proposals and the Hemel Hempstead Gazette for raising the profile of the issue.

Speaking after the debate, David welcomed the confirmation from the Minister that NATS are looking again at the proposals. 'A strong case has been made for looking at this again. The routes proposed by NATS can be approved upon and it is not necessary for Tring, Berkhamsted, Aldbury, Wigginton and Northchurch to face the prospect of a substantial increase in more flights flying lower over these areas.'

FULL TEXT OF DAVID'S SPEECH

Mr. David Gauke (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. Bercow-

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

3.15 pmOn resuming-

Mr. Gauke: As I was saying, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Bercow-that is now the third time that I have said that this week.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on securing the debate, which is of considerable interest to many people in his constituency and certainly in mine. He set out very well not only the general background to the consultation undertaken by NATS, but the case as it applies specifically to his constituency. I am sure that the horse breeders of Newmarket and the surrounding areas will be grateful for his diligent work.

My involvement in the matter dates back to the publication of the NATS consultation. In The Times of that day, there was a map showing the noise preferential routes-to use the jargon-proposed in the NATS consultation. It was noticeable that the new noise preferential routes in the proposals would go through my constituency and between the towns of Tring and Berkhamsted, covering villages such as Northchurch, Aldbury and Wigginton. The article noted that the area of the country that would suffer most was the one that I have the privilege of representing.

I immediately looked through the proposals in the consultation document and wrote to NATS. To be fair, it responded very promptly, and I had a meeting with senior representatives in March. I told them-they did not particularly doubt my analysis, which extrapolated from the figures in the consultation-that the proposals would disadvantage many of my constituents in the towns and villages that I mentioned. I include Tring and Berkhamsted because although they are not overflown by the noise preferential routes, they will none the less suffer as a result of a number of the changes. The representatives of NATS accepted that there was an issue.

I warned NATS that my constituents were an able and articulate lot and that they would address the proposals in a thoughtful and intelligent way, and I am pleased to say that my constituents have lived up to that prediction. In a relatively short period, the various groups have come together, and there is now an umbrella organisation called the Chiltern countryside group. I pay tribute to the work that it has done in producing a detailed analysis of the proposals-we are not talking about a knee-jerk reaction, with people saying, "This is bad news. We don't like it."

The Chiltern countryside group contains people with the most extraordinary expertise, who come not only from my constituency, but from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), and I dare say that one or two also live in the constituency of Buckingham, Mr. Bercow. They include former air traffic controllers, pilots and people with great expertise regarding the Chiltern conservation area. The group has analysed some of the proposals, and I will return to that in a moment. It has made some quite constructive suggestions, and I hope that its technical submission will be examined by NATS and, where appropriate, the Civil Aviation Authority.

The consultation raises one or two issues, one of which is the timing. I am pleased that the end of the consultation period was extended from 22 May, as in the initial proposal, to 19 June. In my constituency-I suspect that this is not untypical-there has been a build-up of momentum as public interest has increased. There are certainly criticisms that NATS did not publicise the initial consultation as well as it might have. I have, as I have said, been involved in the issue from an early stage in my area, and have publicised it in the local newspaper. The Hemel Hempstead Gazette has done sterling work in publicising it, and public awareness has increased. There has been a range of meetings in Tring, Berkhamsted, Northchurch and Wigginton, some of which I have had the opportunity to attend. I wonder about the adequacy of the time frame, even if extended. There have been some excellent submissions from local groups, but I wonder whether more time would have allowed a stronger response to be made.

I want to make a couple of technical points about the consultation document. First, the question of the depiction of heights was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk. There is great uncertainty. Various height figures are given in the document, generally designating ranges such as 3,000 ft to 4,000 ft. However, it is not entirely clear what is being talked about. Paragraphs 11.6 to 11.9 state that the heights of routes are

"measured in different ways depending on where they are".

They go on to state that the measurement is taken

"from ground level at an airport, while further away from airports the measure is taken from sea level".

That is somewhat ambiguous, and it is a significant point, because by and large the flights that are of concern to my constituents are those that depart from Luton. Luton is 525 ft above sea level, but the villages that I represent tend to be higher. Wigginton, for example, is 690 ft above sea level. In the case of Wigginton, are the relevant heights measured from sea level, in which case the actual minimum height will be 2,310 ft, or should we be considering the Luton figure, in which case it is 2,835 ft? At such levels, there is quite a big difference between the two-a difference of 500-plus ft or so. One way or another it is quite significant.

Another criticism of the NATS proposals is that it is not obvious that it has taken into account ground levels when assessing particular routes. That point was touched on in the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. He also represents several villages that are very high up. Clearly flights overhead will create more noise for those villages than they will for villages at the bottom of a valley. That is a significant practical point.

My other criticism about the consultation document is about the issue of decibel levels. Several projections are included, but they appear to be very wide. It is helpful that the consultation document gives some examples of the noise level to which various decibel levels relate. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I do not really know what 60 dB means. One example in the document is that 85 dB is the equivalent of the sound made by a heavy diesel lorry at 25 mph, 23 ft away. That is precise and helpful. Another example is that a busy general office makes noise at a level of 60 dB. There is clearly a wide gap between those two noise levels. However, the noise range for flights by the noisiest aircraft at a height of 3,000 ft to 4,000 ft is 65 dB to 83 dB. There is clearly a big difference between the noise from a busy general office and that from a heavy diesel lorry 23 ft away travelling at 25 mph. Yet the ranges given, from which people are to assess what the noise levels from the flight paths will be, are not far short of a comparison between those two noise levels. That makes it difficult to assess what the impact will be.

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk said, there is much to be gained from flights. It is a fact of life and much of the concern about flights arises simply because there is an increase in their number. That point was made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). However, that is not the issue that is to be decided in the consultation, or the specific issue faced by my constituents in the areas I have mentioned. The concern is that, although there will be more flights, whether or not the flight paths change, aircraft will, under the proposals, be flying lower over my constituency. The reason is that as a rule the change in routes has meant flights moving further south than previously. As a consequence they are caught up in Heathrow traffic and are kept lower to allow flights from Heathrow to fly above them.

I have two suggestions to make about that. First, greater consideration could be given to the idea of simply moving flights further north. Work on that issue has been undertaken by the Chiltern countryside group. The point of the suggestion is not simply to move the problem into someone else's back yard-I say that with some nervousness, knowing who represents the constituency to the north-west of mine; once flights are moved a little further north they can climb more quickly. That is beneficial not just for noise pollution but environmentally. Once a flight has moved quickly up, it is more efficient. I am not aware of any disagreement on that.

The second possible solution to the problem involves the question of moving what is described as the Bovingdon stack. Bovingdon is a village in my constituency where arrivals for Heathrow are stacked. I have spoken to residents and the concern in Bovingdon is not particularly noise from the stack, which flies several thousand feet above; the impact is that flights departing from Luton are kept lower than they would otherwise be. I know that the question of moving the Bovingdon stack is being considered, and, indeed, if the third runway at Heathrow were ever to be implemented, it would have to happen. That is not an argument one way or the other, but given that the work has been done it is a pity that NATS has not included in its process the possibility of moving the Bovingdon stack. If it did, that might solve some of our problems.

That leads me to my final criticism of the consultation document, which is that it does not offer alternatives. It is very much a question of "Take it or leave it; here are our proposals". Those are either to stay as we are, which is not ideal for the purpose of dealing with flights over populated areas-a move is clearly in the best interest of such places as St. Albans, Hatfield and parts of Hemel Hempstead-or to go with the proposals. The detailed work done by NATS suggests that there are alternatives that would benefit those areas over which there are currently many flights, which would not result in more low-flying planes over the likes of Tring, Berkhamsted, Wigginton, Aldbury and Northchurch. It is therefore possible that we can do better. I hope and urge that NATS will be prepared to look again for improvements-and if the Minister can influence it in any way I ask him to take whatever action is necessary. There may be detailed technical points that it would not be appropriate to make today, and which it would be difficult to deal with without benefit of a map. However, changes could be made that would address my constituents' concerns and, I hope, reduce flight paths over other constituencies.

3.29 pm

| Hansard"