Decision details

Cabinet

AGREED     

That the Growth and Sustainability portfolio holder should be given delegated responsibility to submit the Council’s response to the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) no less than 48 hours after the suggested response had been sent to all elected members.

Cabinet’s suggested response to NATS are:

(a)               Only one option - Whilst recognising that airspace management is complex the Council would have preferred to have greater details provided on the alternative options since these might have assisted in understanding why the final option was considered to be the best. NATS has not complied with the CAA guidance in this matter. The Council request that additional information be provided on the other options considered by NATS.

(b)               Additional holds proposed - The Council support the removal of the sharing of holds by Luton and Stansted given that this will improve the operational safety and efficiency of aircraft movements over this District.  The Council are concerned that Stansted is to have two holds with the implication that there is then the need to position more holds over the South Cambridgeshire area. There has been no reasoned justification for the need for two holds.

(c)               Holds for Luton and West Stansted - The Council is concerned that the two new holds which will experience an increase in aircraft activity are part of the District which are very rural in character with low ambient noise at present and the disturbance to these areas will be greater than if flights were over more populated areas or ones with a higher ambient noise such as near busy roads.  It is likely to cause disturbance to the communities living in these areas as is highlighted in the BAA publication on noise. The frequency in which aircraft use the holds could create an intermittent noise pattern that would disturb these quiet rural areas.

(d)               The Council is also concerned that diverting air traffic north of Saffron Walden will have detrimental effect on the quality of life for villages in the south of the District.

(e)               The Council is concerned by the impact these proposals will have upon the racing industry around Newmarket.

(f)                 The Council request that alternative positions for the holds should be seriously considered in areas where there is a higher ambient noise level – such as nearer to the A1 corridor.  As NATS did not provide information on the alternative locations considered by them it is difficult to assess the advantages of their proposed holds. CAP 725 states that as a result of a consultation NATS should be prepared to challenge long-standing beliefs and this must be the case in re- positioning the holds away from quiet rural areas. (CAP 725 Page 8 para 20(g))

(g)               Populations affected - The Council is concerned that the population figures used by NATS in this document to indicate the numbers of people affected by the new holds appear to be erroneous showing lower figures than those calculated by the County Council.  The benefits of the newly proposed holds may mean that it is not the case that fewer people will be over flown.

(h)               Populations within the Leq noise contours - The Council requests that maps showing the noise contours should be provided in order to assess the impact of the proposed changes to the residents in South Cambridgeshire as regards noise.  Without spatial maps it is not possible to make this assessment. The current maps by just showing the Lmax contours do not indicate the frequency of this noise to this district and therefore its full impact.

(i)                  Set routes and direct flight paths - The Council is concerned that the use of set routes will concentrate the disturbance of aircraft into very narrow corridors but is aware that this is a navigational improvement for aircraft. If direct flight paths are used this could result in aircraft not being so concentrated along these dedicated corridors and could create less disturbance to those communities living below set routes since the potential noise would be spread over a wider area and potentially away from the more rural areas of this district.  The Council would on balance prefer direct flight paths.

(j)                  Method of consulting - The Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on the TCN proposal but do not support the method used by NATS. Insufficient copies of the document have been made available to this Council and to parish councils for councillors to appraise the proposals.   Information about the different options considered was not included in the consultation, which is contrary to the advice contained in CAP 725.

(k)                Given the additional information requested by the Council it is essential that a further period of consultation is made available to consider these options.

(l)                  Future implications - The Council request that a review be carried out a year after the current TCN proposals are implemented in order to assess their impact on local communities.  

Cabinet

AGREEDthat the Council should write to the Civil Aviation Authority and the relevant Government Minister expressing the concerns listed above.