Fly Tipping
The Abberton Scheme
Wind Turbines
Stansted - Proposed new Flight Path and Runway
Fly Tipping - Keep our beautiful countryside tidy.
Fly tipping is a disgusting habit and likely to become an increasing problem in an economic downturn, particularly if Council’s start charging for dumping. Although a boring subject to write about, it is important that our supporters know that we can make a real difference. All three District Councils in our area have Departments which deal with complaints, and will arrange for the removal of refuse dumped on public property and if possible bring offenders to book. Even where it is dumped on private property, and as such is the legal responsibility of the owner to remove, the Council will send out experienced investigators to try and identify those responsible and prosecute. They have designated departments there to help. At Colchester Borough Council, you can contact Shane Taylor on 01206- 282 838. For Braintree DC telephone the call centre on 01376- 552 525 and ask to be put through to “Environment”. Likewise with Babergh DC, call the department responsible on 01473 825 890. So please do what you can to ensure our countryside is kept tidy. A word of caution, anyone using a non-licensed waste carrier who then dumps the waste will themselves be liable to be prosecuted.
Back to top
The Abberton Scheme.
The Association has taken an interest in Northumbrian Water’s proposals to increase storage capacity at Abberton reservoir by taking more water from the Ouse and pumping it down the Stour from Wixoe through to a new pumping station at Wormingford. Those who are interested and who have not so far studied the proposals should access Essex and Suffolk Water’s web site for the above scheme. (www.eswater.co.uk) Essex and Suffolk Water is part of The Northumbrain Water Group. The Association has kept in touch with The Stour Valley Project which has undertaken a detailed environmental study of the scheme so far as it may affect the Stour. Of particular concern to the Association has been the location and design of the new station at Wormingford. Below is the letter which has been written to the Colchester Borough Council. The design itself, which can be seen on the Borough’s planning application site, is now unobjectionable. After complaint, it was changed from a modern concrete structure to an Essex barn design, intended to blend with the landscape so far as possible.
Sue Jackson
Planning, Protection and Licensing
Colchester Borough Council
PO Box 889
Town Hall
Colchester
C01 1FL.
28th April 2008.
Dear Ms Jackson,
Wormingford Pumping Station.
The Association has been provided with a copy of the Dedham Vale AONB and Stour Valley Project’s letter of the 12th March. We strongly support it. The proposed site of the Pumping Station is within the area covered by this Association, which is responsible for protecting the rural countryside in the Stour and Colne Valleys. It has a substantial membership of over 500, as well as affiliated parishes.
Although not objecting to the design of the Station, we are very concerned over its proposed location, (option 7). This is a very open site behind Staunch Farm, highly visible from almost every direction, apart from the Bures-Colchester road at the end of Staunch Farm. It would be too conspicuous from Clickets Hill, the Fir Trees and Pear Tree Hill. As Mr Amstutz’s letter makes clear, option 6 should be the preferred site, having considerably less impact on the landscape, with woodland screening to the north and excellent access.
Are you aware as to why the Applicants decided against option 6? Could it be because they wanted to cut down on cost? We suggest that you require the applicants to resubmit their application. This part of the countryside is too important.
Yours sincerely,
Charles Aldous.QC.
Back to top
Wind Turbines
The Association fully supports the Government’s aims of reducing carbon emissions through the promotion of renewable energy sources. Wind turbines have a part to play but it is important that we appreciate their limitations.
Modern turbines are over twice the height of electricity pylons and therefore have a huge impact on the UK’s rather small scale landscape. Once built, wind turbines require high voltage power lines to connect them to the grid as well as service roads, greatly increasing their impact on the countryside.
Furthermore wind turbines are not particularly efficient and on average operate at only about 27% of installed capacity. Because the wind only blows intermittently and the demand for electricity is constant, they will all have to be backed up by fossil fuel or nuclear capacity.
Present installed capacity of wind farms in the UK is about 2.5 GW or 3% of the country’s total power capacity. Nuclear power on the other hand supplies approximately 20% of the country’s energy and modern nuclear reactors do not carry the risks associated with the old Chernobyl type reactor. We believe that there will have to be a significant increase in the nuclear programme if the UK is to avoid power shortages.
The Association will only support the building of new wind farms on coastal and other exceptionally windy sites. We will oppose the erection of random wind turbines in the villages of the Colne and Stour valleys as these are likely to provide very little economic benefit at the cost of serious damage to the landscape given that they can only ever supply a small percentage of this country’s energy requirements.
For the above reasons, will any member who hears of an application to erect a wind turbine in our area please contact the Association’s local representative or a member of the Committee so that appropriate action can be taken
Back to top
Proposed New Flight Paths. Proposed Second Runway at Stansted
We need Members to write in about both the above matters.
You will have your own ideas, but here are some points that you might like to consider making, but please use your own wording!
You can find out more by visiting the Stop Stansted Expansion website. (www@stopstanstedexpansion.com)
Proposed Revised Flight Paths
Members are asked to write to NATS to express any concerns about revised flight paths. Please remember that aircraft have to fly somewhere and if the flight paths are moved they will still affect somebody on the ground. (My backyard to your backyard!)
However there are a number of points that can be made
1) There is a flight path over the Stour Valley between Wormingford and Sudbury and this is an area that has been, and continues to be, a possible extension of the AONB. If the AONB were extended then these flight paths would have to be moved (viz Dedham Vale)
2) There does not appear to have been any consideration given to placing stacks over the sea. There are problems with this idea as aircraft fly at different speeds and this would be complicated at such a distance from Stansted meaning that the controllers would need to know and take account of the type of each aircraft. Another factor is that aircraft coming from the North, West and South might have to fly further to get over the sea. However it should be considered but it has been arbitrarily dismissed by NATS as too difficult.
3) More effort should be made of “spreading” the flight paths over a wider area. (Although the nearer the aircraft get to Stansted the narrower the path has to become.)
4) Stacks are best placed over areas where there is a background noise such as major roads (A14) (A12) or, major conurbations, although this then affects more people on the ground, although the noise may be less noticeable.
The time limit for writing has been extended to the 22nd of June. You need to write to NATS. TCN Consultation, NATS, Freepost NAT22750, Reading, RG1 4BR
Second Runway
Consider an airport larger than Heathrow. This is what it will become!
Points you can make are numerous but could include some of the following
1) Access by road and rail are woefully inadequate. Due to trains having to go to Liverpool Street there is little room for upgrading the line.
2) Traffic on the M11 is already a problem as it is on the M25 which is a major link road and the Dartford Crossing is already gridlocked for much of the day.
3) The A120 is a nightmare from Braintree going East.
4) The A12 is nose to tail traffic all day.
5) There will have to be a large destruction of ancient houses and woodland dating back to the ice age.
6) Why not reconsider Maplin for a new airport? From letters I have received this could be a possibility and would allow stacking over the sea.
7) There has always been an argument that a second runway is not viable without a cross subsidy from Heathrow and Gatwick which would cost airlines using those airports money.
8) Due to the infrastructure that goes with an airport there would be a serious impact on the local community and the environment and the noise levels will affect anyone living within 70 miles of the airport. (That is virtually every CSCA Member) Consider three times as many planes as at present!
Letter from Uttlesford District Council
Dear Sir/Madam
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
PLANNING (LISTED BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS) ACT 1990
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT INQUIRIES PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) RULES 2005
PROPOSED SECOND RUNWAY AT STANSTED AIRPORT
Thank your for your comments.
The 38 applications for planning permission and listed building consent comprising the second runway proposals have now been called-in for determination by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has decided to call for an inquiry, comprising concurrent inquiries into each application due to start on 15th April 2009.
I am required at this stage under the 2005 Rules to send you as an interested party a copy of the Secretary of State’s Statement of Matters in respect of the called-in applications. These are the matters which the Secretary of State particularly wishes to be informed about for the purposes of her consideration of the applications. A copy of the Statement of Matters is attached.
Whilst this Council is no longer the determining authority for these applications, any representations that it has received or continues to receive up to the consultation deadline of 26th September will be forwarded to the Inquiry Inspector for consideration.
Yours faithfully
John Mitchell
Chief Executive
Inquiry Subjects
Annex B – Secretary of State’s Statement of Matters in respect of the called in applications in Annex A
On the information so far available to the Secretary of State, the following are matters which the Secretary of State particularly wishes to be informed about for the purposes of her consideration of the applications:
The extent to which the proposed development is in accordance with the development plan for the area, having regard in particular to the Regional Spatial Strategy for the Region.
Whether there are local environmental considerations that would outweigh the policy support for a second runway set out in the Air Transport White Paper and in particular:
i) The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with Government policies in Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1), the accompanying guidance, The Planning System: General Principles and the accompanying supplement, Planning and Climate Change with particular regard to the prudent use of natural resources, the impact on the environment with regard to energy use and emissions, and the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.
ii) The extent to which the proposal is consistent with Government policies in Planning Policy Guidance 4: Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms (PPG4) and the emerging Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Development (PPS4), with particular regard to:
a) high quality development and inclusive design
b) avoiding adverse impacts on the environment, but where these are unavoidable, providing mitigation
c) shaping travel demand by promoting sustainable travel choices wherever possible.
iii) The extent to which the proposal is consistent with Government policies in Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (PPS9), with particular regard to:
a) the extent to which the proposed development is likely to have an impact on the local flora and fauna and any designated sites
b) whether or not there is likely to be any impact on a European protected species listed in the Habitats Directive
c) whether there is likely to be any impact on species protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or any other legislation.
iv) The extent to which the proposal is consistent with Government policies in Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13), in particular:
a) on the need to locate development in a way which helps to:
• promote more sustainable transport choices
• promote accessibility to jobs and services by public transport, walking and cycling; and
• reduce the need to travel, especially by car
b) whether the proposal complies with local car parking standards and the advice in paragraphs 52 to 56 of PPG13
c) the adequacy of the road network to safely accommodate increased traffic
d) the adequacy of rail and coach provision.
v) The extent to which the proposal is consistent with Government policies in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment (PPG15) with particular regard to:
a) the desirability of preserving the listed buildings of: Carters Farm; Yew Tree Cottage; the Three Horseshoes Public House; Waltham Hall; the Cart Lodge at Waltham Hall; the Nine Bay Barn at Waltham Hall; the Barn at Waltham Hall; the Barn to the west of Waltham Hall; the Granary at Waltham Hall; Little Grange; The Grange; the Granary to east of The Grange; the Three Bay Cart Lodge to east of The Grange or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess, and the advice on the demolition of listed buildings set out in paragraphs 3.5 and 3.16 – 3.19 of PPG15
b) the appropriateness of the proposed reconstruction of some of these buildings
c) the impact of the proposed development on the character and integrity of the historic landscape and environment of north-west Essex and the surrounding area and the adequacy of the approach proposed to mitigating the effect of the development on this landscape.
vi) The extent to which the proposal is consistent with Government policies in Planning Policy Guidance Note 16: Archaeology and Planning (PPG16), with particular regard to:
a) the adequacy of any assessment and field evaluation to determine the character and extent of archaeological remains and the options for minimizing or avoiding damage;
b) having regard to the assessment and field evaluation, whether the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains is justified, taking into account the presumption in favour of the physical preservation of nationally important archaeological remains and their settings;
c) where the physical preservation in situ of archaeological remains is not considered justified in the circumstances of the case and development resulting in the destruction of the archaeological remains should proceed, whether appropriate and satisfactory provision can be made for the excavation and recording of the remains;
d) the desirability of preserving the scheduled ancient monuments at The Grange and at Waltham Hall or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.
vii) The extent to which the proposal is consistent with Government policies in Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (PPS23), with particular regard to:
a) the extent to which any increase in the level of air pollution could be damaging to local flora, especially at Hatfield Forest and Eastend Wood Sites of Special Scientific Interest,
b) the effect of air pollution on the overall health of the population.
viii) The extent to which the proposal is consistent with Government policies in Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise (PPG24), with particular regard to the detailed guidance on the assessment of noise from different sources in paragraphs 1 and 6 – 12 of Annex 3, and whether any increase in noise would be harmful to the living conditions and health of local residents and to their quality of life.
Whether any permission granted for the proposed development should be subject to any conditions and, if so, the form these should take, having regard to the advice in DOE Circular 11/95, and in particular the tests in paragraph 14 of the Annex.
Whether any other consents granted for the proposed works should be subject to any conditions and, if so, the form these should take.
Whether any planning permission granted should be accompanied by any planning obligations under Section 106 of the 1990 Act and, if so, whether the proposed terms of such obligations are acceptable.
Any other matters that the Inspector considers relevant.
Mark Dawson
Planning Applications
We have experienced a situation where a local planning application, with potential adverse consequences to our conservation area, was not drawn to the attention of your Committee until it was too late for any objection to be lodged. Please will all members who know of any matter, which they believe the Association should be aware of, take it upon themselves to draw it to the attention of their area representative or a member of your Committee. Do not assume someone else will do so. This is a recipe for it being missed. Further, we are short of representatives in many areas. Likewise in areas where we have an existing representative there may well be the need for two people to cover the area sufficiently and keep in touch with their local parish councils. Do please put your name forward. We need as much help as possible.
Back to top
Response from the Dedham Vale Society to NATS Terminal Control North –
We are grateful for the extension of the period for consultation as it has enabled a much wider response from our members.
As a result of these consultations and discussions with our committee, on behalf of the Dedham Vale Society (DVS), I can now respond as follows:
On the whole The Dedham Vale Society strongly supports NATS proposals and believes the policy of aligning flight-paths with main trunk roads such as the A14 where the ambient noise factor is already high, is sensible. Provided that the flight-paths indicated in the consultation as they affect the AONB are adhered to we believe, subject to the matters set out below, that the proposals have the potential to meet the concerns which led the Society to pursue its judicial review before Mr Justice Newman. In this regard, DVS wishes to associate itself with the observations of the Stour and Orwell Society and with those of Mr Thomas Hill.
We do however strongly oppose one aspect of NATS proposals which will have a seriously adverse impact on the north-western edge of the AONB and the area of its proposed extension to the west.
We have a number of matters where we ask for clarification.
We believe one of NATS key criteria for routing flight-paths is seriously flawed and may be illegal as it contravenes an EU Directive.
Departures from the proposed Eastern Stansted-bound hold
The proposal which we strongly oppose is in respect of departures from the Eastern Hold over the Stowmarket area.
DVS notes that it is proposed that both Easterly and Westerly arrivals into Stansted will follow a steep southerly dog-leg which will take them over the western edges of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the area which The Dedham Vale Society has long campaigned to have included in the AONB.
This area adjoins the western edge of the AONB and comprises the parishes of Bures, Mount Bures, Lamarsh and Alphamstone. The DVS website gives the area involved. (www.dedhamvalesociety.org.uk ) We also attach a map from our literature which shows the area in question.
Although the parishes we have listed above are not yet in the AONB, they are all part of an Area of Special Landscape Value.
Whilst we have noted in the NATS consultation document about the reasons for dog-legs in your “answers to commonly asked questions”, it would seem that this particular dog-leg is unnecessarily deep.
The obvious straightest, quickest and cheapest route from the Eastern hold would be to fly out of it just North of Sudbury straight into Stansted.
If a priority is to avoid Sudbury, then a dogleg over Great Cornard, just to the South, would be more sensible than the one proposed. Much of this area is covered with industrial buildings, where aircraft noise is not an issue and the ambient noise level is much higher than in the quiet and pretty villages further South. Again, it would provide a cheaper, quicker solution.
The four villages in question suffer from no fewer than 10 flight paths. The outbound flights are normally high enough not to cause problems, although these aircraft can be heard on still evenings, but the new flight path descending from the Eastern Hold into Stansted will destroy the area’s tranquillity if it is to be used frequently.
There is virtually no ambient noise in these parishes, especially in Lamarsh and Alphamstone and incoming jet aircraft noise, which has been such a soul-destroying feature for these parishes since 1999, is deeply offensive and will prejudice their eventual inclusion in the AONB.
The Dedham Vale Society strongly urges that NATS adjusts the centre line for this flight-path for a shallower dog-leg further North in this instance.
The proposal which we strongly oppose is in respect of departures from the Eastern Hold over the Stowmarket area.
DVS notes that it is proposed that both Easterly and Westerly arrivals into Stansted will follow a steep southerly dog-leg which will take them over the western edges of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the area which The Dedham Vale Society has long campaigned to have included in the AONB.
This area adjoins the western edge of the AONB and comprises the parishes of Bures, Mount Bures, Lamarsh and Alphamstone. The DVS website gives the area involved. (www.dedhamvalesociety.org.uk) We also attach a map from our literature which shows the area in question.
Although the parishes we have listed above are not yet in the AONB, they are all part of an Area of Special Landscape Value.
Whilst we have noted in the NATS consultation document about the reasons for dog-legs in your “answers to commonly asked questions”, it would seem that this particular dog-leg is unnecessarily deep.
The obvious straightest, quickest and cheapest route from the Eastern hold would be to fly out of it just North of Sudbury straight into Stansted.
We have a number of matters where we ask for clarification.
We believe one of NATS key criteria for routing flight-paths is seriously flawed and may be illegal as it contravenes an EU Directive.
Departures from the proposed Eastern Stansted-bound hold
If a priority is to avoid Sudbury, then a dogleg over Great Cornard, just to the South, would be more sensible than the one proposed. Much of this area is covered with industrial buildings, where aircraft noise is not an issue and the ambient noise level is much higher than in the quiet and pretty villages further South. Again, it would provide a cheaper, quicker solution.
The four villages in question suffer from no fewer than 10 flight paths. The outbound flights are normally high enough not to cause problems, although these aircraft can be heard on still evenings, but the new flight path descending from the Eastern Hold into Stansted will destroy the area’s tranquillity if it is to be used frequently.
There is virtually no ambient noise in these parishes, especially in Lamarsh and Alphamstone and incoming jet aircraft noise, which has been such a soul-destroying feature for these parishes since 1999, is deeply offensive and will prejudice their eventual inclusion in the AONB.
The Dedham Vale Society strongly urges that NATS adjusts the centre line for this flight-path for a shallower dog-leg further North in this instance.
Matters for clarification
It is not clear from the documentation what the extent of “tactical vectoring” will be under the new proposals. We need to know the extent to which this practice, which we understand to mean where aircraft actually fly as opposed to the main flight-paths shown on NATS consultation plans, will be followed.
We believe we are entitled to a broad understanding of how this may continue to affect the Dedham Vale AONB as a result of the ruling by Mr Justice Newman that specific account is taken of the impact on Dedham Vale and Stour & Orwell AONBs.
How many aircraft are expected to arrive at Stansted from the East on average each day?
Please could NATS give a percentage range of aircraft which will continue to fly over the AONB. For example: 1-3% of Easterly arrivals.
Under what circumstances are the Eastern and Western Stansted holds to be used? Is this a factor of weather or are a certain proportion of aircraft to be sent to each hold. If the latter, what percentage of air traffic to the Eastern hold and what to the West?
We understand that the holds are used when traffic is heavy, normally in the early morning and evening with greater volumes in summer than in winter. However, for much of the time when traffic is lighter, holds will not be required.
Please could NATS confirm that in this case aircraft will be obliged to follow the more northerly route, roughly over the coast from Felixstowe northwards and then along the A14 corridor and down direct to Stansted from a point north of Sudbury between the Eastern and Western holds.
These points are enormously important to our members.
We appreciate that NATS cannot give answers to these questions with pinpoint accuracy and that the issues of safety and weather conditions will cause substantial variations, but it would be enormously helpful in explaining the likely impact of the airspace changes to our members if NATS could give average ranges of figures and give us an understanding of when the various hold and direct flight options will be used.
In some instances it might well reduce the alarm felt in many quarters about the likely impact compared with the present situation.
NATS Flight-path Principles
We believe there is one major issue in which the principle that NATS has used appears to us to be seriously flawed. This is “overflying areas of low population is to be preferred where possible”.
The European Directive on Environmental Noise 2002 states that member states should maintain environmental noise quality where it is currently good. Routing aircraft over rural areas which have the designation “Areas of Special Landscape Value” and which have almost no background noise, would seem to contravene this Directive.
In addition, these areas, whilst having a lower population, are also treasured by nearby urban populations as tranquil places to visit and these visitors are a vital part of their economy.
Residents move there because they are sensitive to noise and require tranquillity as a priority in their lives.
Tranquillity is much less of a priority for most urban dwellers.
We have confined our remarks to the specific matters which affect the area covered by the Dedham Vale Society but for the record, we will strenuously oppose the expansion of Stansted airport and in particular the construction of a second runway.
On behalf of the Dedham Vale Society Robert Erith TD DL, President 10th June 2008.
Back to top
NATS RESPONSE
This letter is the NATS response to the DVS commentary on the proposed flight paths. Unfortunately the DVS commentary should come first, but my computer decided otherwise! Read the following letter before reading this!
I am afraid that this letter has lost much of it's format as well as it's heading as I do not have a program to convert a scan (which is in effect a photograph)to word. Someone has kindly done this for me, with some difficulty, but in the process some detail has been lost and some words disappeared and have had to be re-typed.
TCN Consultation
NATS
Freepost NAT22750
Reading
RG1 4BR
Mr Robert Erith
President, Dedham Vale Society
Shrubs Farm
Lamarsh,
Suffolk
16th June 2008
Ref: SGOO1B12-C
Dear Mr Erith
Thank you for your interest in NATS’ Terminal Control North (TCN) consultation on proposed changes to airspace.
Your views have been logged as part of the consultation and your comments, alongside other issues raised during the process, will help to form the Consultation Feedback Report. This will be published on the NATS website by 22nd July 2008 and submitted to the Civil Aviation Authority
(CAA).
Suggested realignment of approach route from the Stansted western hold
The design of routes requires consideration of a number of factors. In addition to environmental criteria, consideration must be given to the interaction of each route with other routes in the vicinity, and also to international safety requirements for route design. Full consideration of all the issues is required to ensure routes are safe, flyable by all aircraft in all conditions, and that environmental effects have been mitigated as far as possible according to the CAA and government guidance.
Your suggested route alignments will be considered as part of the post consultation review, alongside other suggestions raised during the consultation.
A report on the consultation will be published on the NATS website on 22nd July 2008. This will include a list of all the practical suggestions for changes to the proposed designs that have been received during the consultation exercise, including yours. The report will also detail whether these options are feasible, whether they require any further analysis, and what next steps NATS will take.
Understanding traffic spread shown in the route and flight path maps
The route and flight path map shows the estimated spread of flight paths around each route. These spreads are for future traffic patterns and therefore no actual data exists which can be analysed. The information presented in the documents has been generated by operational experts drawing on knowledge, where applicable, from existing flight data and from computer simulations of future traffic environments. However, because no actual data exists for the future scenarios no definitive statistical analysis of track distribution is possible.
The expert opinion has been used to determine the anticipated. spread off traffic, shown on the maps by the extent of the coloured areas. However, for the purposes of these diagrams a further distinction is made between the spread of traffic during ‘normal’ and ‘off peak’ periods:
• Normal operations: this is when the airspace is busy because of a high demand from aircraft and the flight paths are generally concentrated over a narrower, more defined swathe.
• Off-Peak: this is when the airspace has less demand placed upon it — at night or other periods during the day when there are fewer aircraft flying; these flight paths are more variable as air traffic control give more direct routes to reduce fuel burn and emissions.
The normal operation generally starts after 6am and ceases around midnight though there may be lulls within this period. As the majority of flights occur during the normal operation period, this grouping of flights also makes up the majority of flights on any given route.
The pair of black lines identifies the area in which the majority of flights occur during normal operations. Majority in this case can be assumed to be in excess of 90%. The coloured areas outside the black lines show the potential spread of flight paths during the off-peak period. The uncoloured areas denote where aircraft are not anticipated to be seen on a regular basis at all. It is important to note that each diagram relates to one route only, and that traffic on other routes may pass through the areas shown at a variety of different heights. Separate route and flight path maps are provided for all routes for which change is proposed, however, there are also numerous routes over each area which are not affected by this proposal for which no maps are provided.
Stansted arrivals from the east
Under the terms of our licence from the CAA, NATS is required to respond to demand for airspace from aircraft operators; this demand is in turn influenced by government policy on air traffic growth as outlined in the 2003 Air Transport White Paper. NATS does not have control over the growth of airports or any increase in the number of aircraft flying.
However, in the preparation of this proposal we have estimated future traffic levels based on historic growth at each airport. This suggests around 120 flights per day in 2009 and 140 per day in 2014 arriving at the airport from the east.
Number of flights over the AONB
The proposal is designed to reduce the proportion of Luton and Stansted arrivals that fly over the Dedham Vale AONB as described in Section 6 of Part E of the consultation document.
However, for the reasons detailed earlier it is not possible to derive reliable detailed statistics of flights that pass over specific geographical areas in the future.
Use of holds
The holds are positioned on specific arrivals routes. Arrivals routes from the North east, east and south east will fly via the eastern hold; this represents 42% of current flights into Stansted. NATS has no reason to assume that this proportion will change in the future; however, NATS has no control over air traffic demand.
On rare occasions, should the western hold become full or there be an overriding safety need, aircraft from the west may ‘swap’ to the eastern hold (and vice versa). However, with the additional holding capacity afforded by the proposed holds this would be a rare occurrence.
Use of controlled airspace and direct routes
Air traffic control can use the full extent of airspace to ensure safety and efficiency. There are no rules to prevent the use of controlled airspace above Dedham Vale.
Air traffic controllers can give an aircraft a direct flight path to follow at any time. However, in reality, the use of direct flight paths is dependent on how busy the airport and surrounding airspace are at the time.
During normal operations, air traffic control procedures and route definitions dictate how airspace is used. The procedures and route design for TCN will mean that under normal operations (as defined above) aircraft will fly between the black lines shown in Figures E9 and El1 of the consultation document. This means that majority of flights will not fly over the
AONB.
However during off peak operations, and occasionally during normal operations, aircraft may fly more direct routes to the airport, which may include overflight of the AONB — hence the AONB and surrounding area is shaded on Figure E9 & El1. However, because there are fewer restrictions during off peak operations any such direct route would involve aircraft staying high for as possible before starting descent towards the airport, and hence all the traffic would be above 7000ft when passing over the AONB.
Note that NATS is also investigating an-alternative method that would force-aircraft-to join the proposed arrival route from the hold to the runway rather than enabling more efficient direct routes.
In terms of noise impact, a direct flight will not follow the normal routes dictated by the route structure and air traffic procedures. Therefore noise from aircraft on direct flight paths is dispersed across the community rather than concentrated over the areas beneath the swathes between the black lines s shown in the route and flight path maps, and beneath the red lines shown the path from the hold to the airport. The wider community would therefore benefit if aircraft arriving in off peak periods were to use the proposed route strUcture instead of using direct flight paths.
On the other hand, allowing direct flight paths in off peak periods to continue as they do today has the benefit of producing less CO2 emissions. Direct flight paths also provide those beneath the proposed P-RNAV route (such as the villages south of Sudbury), who would be overflown regularly during normal operations, with some respite from aircraft noise during off peak periods.
This proposal has the option to implement either method of arrival during less busy periods, i.e. air traffic controllers can position aircraft on direct flight paths from a number of directions or concentrate them on flight paths close to the published P-RNAV route. Feedback is specifically sought on the issue.
For the reasons above the overly simplistic answer to your question is that aircraft will not be obliged to follow the northerly route as you describe but we believe this proposal will reduce the proportion of over flights that pass over the Dedham Vale AONB.
Flight path principles
NATS is obliged to follow the guidance (“Guidance to the civil aviation authority on environmental objectives relating to the exercise of its air navigation functions”, January 2002, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions) states “Government policy will continue to focus on minimising over-flight of more densely populated areas below 7000ft.” NATS has followed this guidance in the positioning of the routes and holds, the consequence of which is that the positions of the proposed routes are over what are considered tranquil rural areas by their inhabitants.
Yours sincerely
TCN Consultation Team