Luton Flightpaths

Jonathan Djanogly Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I am glad that we are saving the best until last. I am also grateful for the opportunity to discuss changes to flightpaths into Luton airport or, to use the technical name, the Swanwick airspace improvement programme—airspace deployment 6.

There are good arguments in favour of changing flightpaths in some way and I welcome the overarching ambition of the programme. Prior to the implementation of the new flightpaths last February, Luton and Stansted airports shared the same holding stacks for arrivals. For the UK’s fifth and third largest airports, that was a problem, because delays at one airport could lead to delays at the other. Separate arrival routes, combined with a dedicated holding stack for each airport, will be less prone to delays and will be safer, especially in the light of potential expansion at both airports, but the implementation of those changes is a major cause of local concern.

Behind the rather bland, technical-sounding name—airspace deployment 6—is a tale of deep distress for local residents in my constituency and neighbouring ones. South Cambridgeshire is quintessential English countryside, scattered with tranquil villages where many residents have lived their entire lives. Others moved there precisely because they wanted the peace and quiet. They wanted to escape the hustle and bustle of urban life.

All that changed in February, when the area became the new home of Luton airport’s holding stack. These once serene villages now have their tranquillity shattered by the roar of jet engines flying overhead. Rather than the soporific sounds of songbirds, residents are awoken by the sound of air brakes screeching overhead as aeroplanes prepare to land. Unsurprisingly, I and fellow MPs have received a huge number of anguished complaints from our constituents about this. They have told me about the distressing impact it has had on their mental and physical wellbeing. A few accounts particularly stick in mind.

Gareth Squance is a former Metropolitan police officer, who sought solace in the village of Gamlingay in my constituency. During his time in the Met, he was intentionally run over and left for dead while promoting safe cycle week. That incident left him suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, for which noise is the primary trigger. Immersing himself in nature and recording the ambient noises provided a coping mechanism, but now the new plane noise forces him to leave the house with noise-cancelling headphones to avoid triggering a state of panic.

Suzie Smith is the third generation of her family to farm in the area. The aeroplane noise is keeping her up at night, which is affecting her ability to perform her duties around the farm in the early hours of the morning. She does not know what to do. This is the area she grew up in and loves, but the plane noise is making farm life unbearable. It has driven her to make countless complaints, which have only received generic, automated responses from Luton airport.

Maddy McKenzie suffers from complex health issues and struggles immensely with hypersensitivity. She finds the plane noise a relentless torment, and she is powerless to escape it. The noise is taking a toll on her physical and mental health. If she could move, she would, but instead she is trapped by the endless plane noise when all she wanted was a quiet life.

I have heard myriad similar tales from my constituents. Many residents are suffering sleepless nights as they are awoken every time a plane goes overhead, which can be up to every two minutes in busy periods. Other residents say they feel like prisoners in their homes, unable to use the gardens that were once their pride and joy, but are now echo chambers for the all-consuming plane noise. It has led some to conclude that enough is enough. After decades of living in these villages, the noise pollution has forced them to move. These people are valued members of their local community, and they are being forced out. Some people feel those that can move are the lucky ones. Others must accept their lot for a range of reasons from financial to health-related concerns. They are demoralised and cannot see any way out of this predicament.

The strength of emotion and the explosion of local outrage have led to a number of new campaign groups determined to end the noise. There are three groups I am aware of that are working tirelessly for a better solution: Reject Luton Airport Stacking, or RELAS; Community Alternatives to Luton’s Flight Path, or CALF; and Against Luton Airport Stack, or ALAS—my favourite acronym. We must ensure that their grievances are given a fair hearing, and that is the point of this Adjournment debate tonight.

I acknowledge that this is only one side of the coin. Air travel plays a vital role in our increasingly globalised world. Just recently, I was speaking about the business opportunities that new routes from Stansted to other life science hubs such as Boston and San Francisco could bring to Cambridgeshire and to the country as a whole. Like many others, I enjoy the opportunity to go on holiday, often travelling by plane. We must accept that some people will be affected by noise pollution from planes. Often people are aware of the impact and make calculated decisions about where they are going to live based on their tolerance levels. For example, many Londoners can cope with plane noise every day, and it blends into the cacophony of other city noises.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Anthony Browne]

I am very happy to give way to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour.

[Mr Djanogly]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and Cambridgeshire neighbour on securing this debate, which is very important to many of those in both our constituencies, especially in the villages surrounding St Neots, and in my case in Great Gransden and Abbotsley in particular. My hon. Friend is making a very good case on noise levels, with which I totally agree—namely, that acceptable ambient noise levels are based on levels in urban areas, and are therefore inherently prejudicial to rural people. Does he not agree that this should be changed?

[Anthony Browne]

I thank my hon. Friend for that insightful intervention and I fully agree; I was going to make exactly the same point, but he beat me to it.

The people who chose to live in South Cambridgeshire did so because of the quiet rural life. They moved there for this reason and chose to bring their children up there for this reason. Very few, if any, ever foresaw the radical change that flightpaths could have on the area. It must have been quite a shock to hear that first plane soar noisily overhead.

Of course, there was a consultation beforehand, conducted by Luton airport and NATS. That consultation lasted five months and received over 2,000 responses. However, it took place in unusual circumstances, due to the ravages of covid. Engagement was virtual rather than the usual town hall meetings, and many people seemed unaware that the consultation was going on.

Since society has rebounded to some sense of normality, it is easy to forget the extraordinary times that prevailed during the pandemic. Air travel was down 90% on its pre-covid peak at certain points and people’s concern over flightpaths were crowded out by their more immediate health concerns about the pandemic. It is not for me to judge the adequacy of the consultation, although others may have their views, but I can say that I am disappointed that, as a key stakeholder, South Cambridgeshire District Council was not engaged more during the process. For many residents, the idea of planes above 5,000 feet sounded quite abstract and distant and of little consequence to their daily lives, but in reality they can often see the logos on each plane as it flies past, and the disruptive noise has permeated their daily lives.

[Mr Djanogly]

My hon. Friend is very kind to allow me to intervene again. He makes an important point, and this unintelligible consultation has worked only to the benefit of those in the flying industry who understood it. When we secured an increase of height for flying above the stack over my constituency, from 8,000 to 9,000 feet, there was no intimation at that point that planes would fly so low coming out of that stack and so quickly, to the prejudice of our constituents. Does he agree that the consultation should be rerun and the whole system should be revised?

[Anthony Browne]

The idea of rerunning the consultation is very interesting; I had not thought of it but will do so, as it sounds like a good idea.

It is clear from what my hon. Friend says and the correspondence from my constituents that the impact and disturbance has been much greater than people were led to believe when the consultation was taking place—they thought it would be very mild. I would argue that this was inevitable, given the current guidelines provided to NATS and Luton airport for the creation of the new flightpath. The guidance states that noise pollution below 51 decibels will not unduly impact the quality of life of those affected. As my hon. Friend said, for urban areas near airports that is perfectly reasonable as the aeroplane noise blends into the other staple sounds of city life. For instance, a street with traffic can consistently be around the 70-decibel level, so 51 decibels would not add much—the planes are only an additional, minor irritant. The same cannot be said for rural areas, however. In South Cambridgeshire the ambient noise levels are far lower, as I am sure they are in my hon. Friend’s constituency: during the day it is around 31 decibels and at night around 18—really very quiet. This means that aeroplane noise has a far greater impact. For context, if we are within 10 metres of a heavy goods vehicle passing, the noise is roughly 48 decibels. For someone living in a local village, such as Dry Drayton in my constituency, planes coming into land at 11 pm are very disruptive; it is the equivalent of many HGVs in quick succession passing close by their house.

That brings me to my first ask of the Minister—who I am glad is here tonight; thank you—which is to revise the guidance to reflect the differing ambient noise levels of urban and rural areas, the point my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) made so eloquently a minute or so ago. What is important is not the absolute noise of an aircraft, but its relative noise compared to the normal ambient noise of an area. Therefore, there should be a separate noise limit, lower than 51 decibels, for rural areas. That will encourage the design of flightpaths around areas where they will cause relatively less nuisance and distress due to the high levels of existing ambient noise, such as over cities. This should be reviewed with the upmost urgency and considered as part of the post-implementation review for the new Luton flightpaths —or part of a rerun consultation, as my hon. Friend suggests.

NATS and Luton airport are doing a post-implementation review of the flightpath changes. I welcomed an initial extension of this review to June 2023, as a result of concerns that flight volumes were still recovering from the pandemic levels, but I do not think that goes far enough. If the consultation is not redone as a whole, as my hon. Friend suggests, will the Minister ask the Civil Aviation Authority to extend the review by a further three months to September 2023? I wrote a letter to the authority on the matter on 2 December, but I am advised that it is still under consideration. Extending the review for three months to September would allow it to encompass the peak season of travel in July and August at normal operating levels. It is important that we understand the impact of the noise of the holiday season on constituents.

I also want to take the opportunity to raise my concern about the review process. It alarms me that it is the responsibility of NATS and Luton airport to report back to the Civil Aviation Authority on the success or otherwise of their flightpaths. There is no direct recourse for residents to lodge their complaints to the Civil Aviation Authority. That is tantamount to NATS and Luton airport marking their own homework. There is a real risk that the assessment is neither objective, nor seen to be by residents. That leads me to my third ask of the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) on securing this debate on London Luton airport flightpaths. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) for their contributions.

I want to open by acknowledging the effects that aviation noise can have on the health and wellbeing of individuals and communities in the vicinity of airports and underneath flightpaths. It is important to take into consideration the impact of airspace changes. I understand the experiences my hon. Friend describes of his constituents following the implementation of airspace deployment 6, known as AD6. In 2017, the Government provided new air navigation guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority, which is now embedded within the authority’s CAP1616 airspace change process. AD6 is following that process.

The guidance requires sponsors of airspace change to undertake air pollution and noise impact assessments of their proposals, and to actively engage and consult with key stakeholders, including communities, on those proposals. The objective of AD6 is to segregate the arriving air traffic at Luton and Stansted airports. It has important safety and efficiency benefits, as my hon. Friend recognised.

AD6 was subject to public consultation between October 2020 and February 2021. In the light of the feedback received, the sponsors made some changes to the proposals. These included slightly shifting the location of the proposed new airborne holding stack, as well as increasing the minimum height in the stack by 1,000 feet. As my hon. Friend noted, AD6 is now the subject of a post-implementation review by the CAA, which seeks to determine whether the actual outcome of the airspace change is consistent with what was expected.

[Mr Djanogly]

The Minister mentions that after the initial consultation the height of the stack was increased. What we have been discussing is what happens after the airplanes come out of the stack. What no one realises and what was not in the consultation—a lot of clever people have been looking at the consultation, which is, frankly, unintelligible—is that the planes very quickly come out of the stack and descend. Why can the planes not stay at stack level until a much later time and then come down, thus not disturbing as many rural people?

[Huw Merriman]

I am about to refer to the airspace modernisation changes, which touch on the impact of lower and deeper climbs. If that does not address my hon. Friend’s point, I will happily meet him and take other points he may feel need to be made. There are wider airspace modernisation changes that also impact on this field, but I am happy to meet him if he does not feel reassured by what I say.

I am pleased to report to the House that the CAA’s review of AD6 allows two opportunities for any concerns to be raised by those who consider they are being affected by the airspace change we are discussing. The first is by contacting London Luton airport before it concludes its impact data collection. Secondly, those impacted can focus on the requirement of the sponsor to publish on the CAA’s airspace change portal its detailed assessment of how any impacts compare with what was set out in the airspace change proposal and accompanying options appraisal on which stakeholders were consulted. Once that assessment has been published, there will be a 28-day window during which anyone may provide feedback about whether the impacts of airspace change have been as they anticipated.

That feedback can be submitted directly to the Civil Aviation Authority via its airspace change portal, which gives local residents the direct channel for complaints post implementation that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire asked for in his third point. When completing the review, the CAA will take account both of the sponsor’s assessment and of the feedback that the CAA has received on it. The CAA’s own assessment will include an analysis of the actual flight track data to determine whether aircraft are flying the AD6 airspace design as expected.

I also note my hon. Friend’s fourth and final point: namely, his desire for the data to be available to communities. I agree that that would be helpful. As part of their post-implementation review submission to the Civil Aviation Authority, the sponsors must—I underline “must”—provide air traffic dispersion graphics, including both lateral and vertical actual flight track information. Before the completion of the review, residents will therefore get a chance to see the air traffic dispersion picture.

The Civil Aviation Authority will use all relevant evidence to determine whether AD6 has met its objectives and can be considered approved, or whether it must be amended or withdrawn; I hear the points that hon. Friends have made in that regard. I remind the House that the Government are not involved in the review process, which is entirely a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point; he has made interesting points as the debate has evolved. I have some knowledge of the issue, in the sense that my constituency is relatively near Gatwick, although not in its flightpaths. It is fair to say that Gatwick provides a lot of economic regeneration for my constituency, but I also know that those who are closer to the airport are affected by airspace noise. It is also fair to say that Manchester Airports Group, which is involved in local authority remuneration, is in a similar situation to Luton airport with respect to what my hon. Friend has described. Yes, of course we can look at sharing the costs, but I also ask that we consider the wider economic benefits for those outside the airport perimeter. However, I obviously recognise that as noise encroaches, it becomes a pollution to them; I will touch on that point further. I recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes and am willing to look again at his ask.

I want to focus, albeit not in order, on the four points that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire made. His second point was a request to ensure that the post-implementation review period is extended to September 2023. I can give him that assurance. Following the request made to the CAA, it intends to extend the data collection period until September 2023. I ask him to accept that response, and I thank him very much for his suggestion. I hope that extending the consultation period will allow more transparency.

My hon. Friend’s first point—as I say, I am going in no particular order—raised the question of background or ambient noise. In 2018 the Department for Transport commissioned the CAA’s environmental research and consultancy department to examine the impact of aircraft noise in areas with different background or ambient noise. The study, which was published in 2019, found no significant association between annoyance and background or ambient noise when other factors were taken into account. That does not mean that the concerns that have been raised tonight should be dismissed. My hon. Friend has informed the House of some upsetting cases of constituents being affected by aviation noise. It can have a demonstrable impact on a person’s health and wellbeing, but that varies from individual to individual and is not attributed only to the noise itself.

However, my hon. Friend also recognised some of the benefits that aviation brings, and I hope he will not mind my joining him in recognising them as well. London Luton Airport makes a positive contribution to the local and national economy. It indirectly employs more than 9,400 staff, and is a key economic driver for the region. I welcome its continued recovery following the impacts of the covid-19 pandemic. We therefore need to strike a fair balance between the negative impacts of aviation on the local environment and communities and the positive economic benefits that flights bring. That is the challenge for aviation noise policy. The Government are committed to reducing the negative impacts of aviation where possible, and that includes noise. We will be considering what changes may be needed to aviation noise policy in due course, and we will set out our next steps later this year. I look forward to working with all my hon. Friends in that regard.

[Mr Djanogly]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Huw Merriman]

If I may, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will indeed give way.

[Mr Djanogly]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is being very generous.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I should point out that the debate must end promptly at 10.38 pm.

[Mr Djanogly]

If the noise policy changes are made, as my hon. Friend says they will be, will they be retrospective?

[Huw Merriman]

I do not wish to make policy on the hoof from the Dispatch Box, but I am willing to meet all three of my hon. Friends to discuss the point from which this should apply. Perhaps we can have that discussion, and I will accept any feedback that they wish to give me.

In the time that I have left—less than one minute—let me reiterate that the Government are committed to reducing the negative impacts of aviation where possible. We also recognise that we live in a fully interconnected, global world, and that the aviation sector is of material value to the UK economy. Airspace modernisation will help the delivery of quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire not only for securing the debate, but—along with my hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly)—moving this matter further forward. Let me also put on the record how well they represent their constituents on this issue.

Question put and agreed to.