YOUR ADDRESS
TCN Consultation
NATS
Freepost Nat22750
Reading
RG1 4BR DATE
Dear Sir or Madam
NATS TCN Consultation/Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and North East Essex
I live in the area under the proposed Stansted western arrivals hold. I am opposed to the position of this hold for the following reasons:
· This area is identified by the CPRE Tranquillity map as one of the quietest in Suffolk.
· It is based on a design principle of directing flights over low population density areas, which by definition are very quiet rural areas.
· The proposals have NOT taken into account the relative noise impact of having the hold over a very quiet area. I will be affected much worse than in areas where there is currently more noise, such as in built-up areas or around major roads. The increase in noise will be detrimental to the health and well being of people living under the hold.
· Many visitor come to rural areas to enjoy this tranquillity. Any increase in noise will have a significant and detrimental effect on visitors to this area.
· I believe that NATS has ignored the direction given it by the Department for Transport, as set out in Appendix C, paragraph 8.1, of the TCN consultation:
“The Department for Transport, in its guidance to the CAA on environmental issues relating to airspace, requires the CAA to ‘pursue policies that will help to preserve the tranquillity where this does not increase significantly the environmental burdens on congested areas’.”
· No consideration has been given to the effect the proposals will have on the local economy. We live in an area where a large number of people work outside in the horse racing or farming industry. Tourism is also important due to the large number of people visiting Newmarket and the surrounding area.
· No consideration has been given in the consultation document to the adverse affect of exhaust waste from a higher volume of lower flying aircraft on the health of the local population and on the eco system.
· No explanation is given in the consultation document for the 4000ft lowest height limit over the whole of this area when the other proposed holds have a lowest height limit of 6000ft
We support the proposal of direct flight paths which would spread the traffic out laterally and ensure that the burden of the proposals is spread out more widely.
I would urge you:
· To reconsider siting the hold over the sea which is common practice around the world as this will reduce the noise impact for thousands of people.
· To revisit the design criteria so that relative noise impact is taken into account and areas of tranquillity preserved.
· To consider options for reducing the impact of the proposals for people living under or near the exit route out of the stack as they will suffer much more noise. If the P-RNav routes are to be used why can’t there be several routes which can be varied over a 1 or 2 week period to allow those people living under these routes some respite from the noise?
Yours sincerely
Send copies to MP (Richard Spring MP, House of Commons, London, SW1A OAA), THE CAA (Head of Business Management, Directorate of Airspace Policy, CAA House, 45-59 Kingsway, London WC2B 6TE or e-mail him at businessmanagement@dap.caa.co.uk) and Suffolk County Council, (Jeremy Pembroke at Tye House, Kersey Tye, Ipswich, Suffolk IP7 6HB or e-mail him at jeremy.pembroke@suffolkcc.gov.uk)
Increase in air traffic is counter to the whole campaign to reduce emmisions which endanger life on the planet.
While as individuals we are continually asked to take measures which will have a positive effect, however small, in a move to ’save the planet’. It would seem we have to accept others can do what they choose.
If there are no additional flights people will adjust their wants to what is available. A positive move. There would be no need for expansion, no need to create new
routes and as a result all will benefit.
I strongly oppose the stacking of aircraft over West Suffolk and East Cambridgeshire in the interests not just of the residents of this area but in the interests of all people in this country and beyond.
Many thanks for bringing my attention to this horror !
Shouldn’t NATS have given me notice ?
When do the objections need to be submitted by ?
Isn’t it true aircraft may jettison unspent fuel whilst stacking and preparing to land. Isn’t this practice more damaging to the environment than noise. If so shouldn’t this be referred to within the letters of objection ?
As someone who has young children this alarming health hazard worries me more than anything else.
Does the Stop Stansted Airport lobby group have more examples of letters of objection we can look at ? They have been lobbying for quite some time and will have comprehensive arguments to use to object to the changed flight paths ? Do you have contacts within that group ? If not can we make them ?