Debate in Westminster Hall on the effect of aircraft noise on local communities

Tom Tugendhat, the Conservative MP for Tonbridge & Malling, obtained a Westminster Hall debate on 20th April, on the effect of aircraft noise on local communities. Many MPs spoke, representing the interests and concerns of their constituents at a variety of airports. The Aviation Minister spoke at the end of the debate, though did not manage to answer some of the questions asked. Below are some extracts of the debate – there is also a full transcript. Some of the issues raised were:  that the CAA should take account of noise impact many miles out from airports, not only close to them; the serious breakdown in trust of the industry by members of the public due to dishonesty and dissembling; the health problems caused by plane noise; the impact where there is only low ambient noise; changes that will be inevitable if the UK meets its aim of being part of the Single European Sky by 2030; how to find a balance between dispersing routes between a number of corridors or concentrating on a number of routes; fair compensation for those negatively affected; and when the DfT will put out its consultation on future airspace. Tom Tugendhat concluded: If I am honest, I am little disappointed that we have not yet had a better answer on what the words “significantly affected” mean, and that we have not had …. a promise that the CAA and NATS will take into account the communities on the ground.”
.
Tweet

 

Whole debate can be watched on Parliament TV (9.30am on 20th April 2016) at  http://ift.tt/22WlFXz

The whole transcript can be see at   http://ift.tt/1U9LlzI

---

Below are some (rather randomly chosen) excerpts that may be of interest:

Tom Tugendhat

I will begin by setting out what I hope to achieve. I thank the Minister, who has been incredibly helpful on the question of aviation noise, but today I would like him to do a few things. First, I would like him to clarify the position of Her Majesty’s Government on the term “significantly affected.” That vague term has caused difficulty for airports and agencies in designing flightpaths that cause the least disturbance. Secondly, I would like the outdated Environmental Protection Act 1990 to be refreshed so that aircraft noise is regulated in the same way as other disturbances, taking into account ambient noise so that the relative difference, as well as the absolute decibel level, is taken into consideration.

…..
, I ask the Minister to demand that the Civil Aviation Authority takes noise disturbance into account and includes communities not just 10 nautical miles but 18 nautical miles from airports so that due consideration is given to local communities that are affected, not just those that neighbour the airport, when planning airspace.

…..
Indeed, the World Health Organisation recommends that such noise levels at school playgrounds should not exceed 55 dB. In my area, and in the area around Gatwick, 15 schools are already exposed to such levels, and nine are overflown more than 20 times a day.

…..
The Civil Aviation Authority’s aircraft noise contour model—a model with which you are no doubt incredibly familiar, Mr Howarth—measures only average noise for the 10 noisiest seconds. This is perhaps not always recognised, but it is a secret that I am willing to share with the House: aircraft move. That means that the average is significantly below the peak level, which is counted only 2.5 km from the rolling point of the aircraft.

…..
When a road is planned or a railway is considered, all those affected have a voice. It seems that communities are only ignored when it comes to overhead infrastructure.

…..
This is an area where we could and indeed should change things. That is why I ask for clarity from the Government on what reducing the numbers who are “significantly affected” means. Does it mean sharing the burden so that many are affected but not significantly, or does it mean placing the burden on the narrowest shoulders so that the fewest people are affected, but those who are affected will be severely impacted and their lives transformed? That guidance should be given to our planners. It would be given if they were planners on the ground, and it should be given to planners in the air.

…..
No agency is responsible for long-term reduction in noise, and I hope the Government now recognise the need to task the CAA and NATS to take on that role, because although aircraft have become quieter and airports are beginning to behave themselves a little, it seems to me that this is an opportunity for the Government to step in and take the lead.

……
If they had been able to admit early on that there had indeed been a change, that NATS had indeed changed the approach and that Gatwick was indeed trying different things, we could at least have had a conversation. However, when they did it overnight in 2013 and then denied that they had done so, the breakdown in trust was such that even though Gatwick is now leading with the Redeborn and Lake review, which I will come on to, and, I would argue, leading best practice on how an airport should communicate with its neighbours, it will be a good number of years before many of us will have confidence that Gatwick can be a good neighbour. I am saddened to hear that there are other airports in this country that have behaved similarly.

…..
Sadly, if we keep getting the dishonesty—or at least the dissembling—that we have seen, we will not have the level of trust required to build a better community.

……

Nusrat Ghani

One thing to note is that the whole review and the changes that we expect to result from it will have been a massive waste of time if Gatwick is allowed to expand with a second runway. We will go from 270,000 flights a year to 560,000, with an increase from 325 to around 850 flights a day over Wealden, which means more noise. The areas of outstanding natural beauty that we are all proud of will be even more compromised. The value of our houses will plummet, and, more importantly, the quality of our lives will be further disrupted by noise pollution.

…..

The proposed changes to arrival routes at Gatwick are very welcome and we will do all we can to make them a reality as quickly as possible. At the same time, we must not lose sight of the bigger picture and the appalling consequences that expansion at Gatwick would have for our constituents because of aircraft noise.

…..

Andy Slaughter

Friends of the Earth, for example, contends that it is misleading to talk about the noise energy emitted by planes being reduced, which is what Heathrow says will happen. According to Heathrow, fewer people will be affected by noise when the third runway is built, when 250,000 additional flights are going over west London and there will be an increase in activity of just under 50%. I do not know anybody who actually believes that apart from the people who spin for Heathrow, but, as Friends of the Earth says, even if there is a decrease in noise energy emitted by planes, that is only loosely linked to human perception of noise, and a 50% reduction in noise energy is only just detectable by the human ear.

….. I particularly want to hear from the Minister about the review of night flights. The existing regulations end in 2017, so when are we going to have a consultation?

…..
Tom Tugendhat

….. We have heard comments from Belfast and will no doubt hear comments from Scotland. We should work together to create a level playing field of understanding, so that the planning for another runway in Perthshire or in Penzance is the same as it would be for Gatwick or Heathrow. At least we would then have some common understanding of the impact on the community beneath, and decisions could be taken in a fair and equitable manner and not just on the basis of who shouts loudest and longest.
…..

Tania Mathias

I hope the Minister will take on board what my hon. Friend Dr Lee said, because there is no trust in the information that communities are being given and in the action the airports are taking to alleviate such a serious medical issue. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend Nusrat Ghani. I, too, have to wear earplugs, which I did not have to do a few years ago. Things have changed and we are being woken up at 4 in the morning. There is noise late at night and at all kinds of hours. There is no mitigation for night flights—none is possible.

…..
We know that there is a direct correlation between noise pollution and cardiovascular events. We also know from the World Health Organisation that seven categories of medical problems are associated with noise pollution, so it is a very serious problem. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Hammersmith, ambient noise does not make people less sensitive to noise. Ambient noise is a problem in itself; it provides no mitigation.

…..
The LAeq measurement is an average; it does not take night flights into account. The other decibel measurement, Lden, is an average over 24 hours. The medical problem relates to when the noise happens, its peak and its irregularity, so the existing measurements are not meaningful for the communities that are disrupted by aircraft noise.

…..
I notice that my local community group, Teddington Action Group, has reported that there is now a serious problem with planes flying at lower angles over longer distances, earlier in the morning and later at night. It is a serious trend. I am grateful to the action group for working out, with the publicly available data, that Heathrow is only just meeting its legal requirements, which are not adequate anyway.

…..
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling that noise should be considered a statutory nuisance. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 should be changed to reflect that.

I absolutely condemn what is going on right now, and I also condemn the dissembling. Change is needed, because no mitigation is possible for the levels of noise pollution that are affecting my idyll of Twickenham.

…..

Ruth Cadbury

I agree with the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling about the need for a public debate about flight routes and approach methods, but in my constituency the planes are on their final approach, so their routes cannot be varied. Steeper glide paths might actually increase the noise levels for those closest to the airport as the planes throttle back.

…..
My constituents look forward to the promised quieter planes, to full alternation, to decent insulation and to a ban on night flights so they can have some semblance of normal life and can sleep through the night more often and wake up fresher the next day. They do not want the 46% increase in flights that a third runway would mean.

…..

Jeremy Quin

As the Davies commission pointed out,

“Knowing that aviation noise will be limited to certain times of the day is very important to many people.”

That is something on which I have common cause with Andy Slaughter and my hon. Friend Dr Mathias. With that in mind, I am horrified that Gatwick’s post-expansion proposal is to operate both runways for take-offs and landings throughout the day, offering no period for respite—not even during the night. Night flights are incentivised by Gatwick’s charging structure. That is a nightmarish vision of the future.

…..

I am disappointed that night flights, which hon. Members have already spoken about, were excluded from the Gatwick review. Like the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I look to the Minister for reassurance that the consultation on night flights will be forthcoming this year.
………

Richard Burden

Noise from aircraft operations is a real source of tension between airports, authorities, airlines and local communities. It is not only the annoyance or disruption, important though such things are, but the genuine public health concerns about ongoing exposure to aircraft noise. A report published in January this year by the Aviation Environment Federation drew on evidence accumulated over the past 20 years to highlight noise exposure and the way in which it can impact on someone’s quality of life. Some studies go further and draw links to the possibility of many serious long-term health problems, to which many hon. Members referred: my hon. Friend Andy Slaughter and the hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) and for Wealden (Nusrat Ghani). All that shows that we need more research to understand in more detail the many variables at play.

…..

(Labour’s 4 tests)
We have been clear about the four criteria against which we will assess a decision, whenever the Government announce it:
how it addresses airport capacity;
how that works in relation to carbon obligations;
local noise and other environmental impacts;
and how the rest of the UK, not simply the south-east, will be affected.

…..

My worry about noise is that all written questions that other Members and I have tabled on the issue seem to receive a stock response from the Government—that they are conducting an ongoing review of their airspace and noise policies. That is fine, but we need to know what it involves. Are the Government in touch with the World Health Organisation to take account of health guidance, and what is their current thinking about the Davies commission’s recommendation on a ban on night flights?

…..
The Government have commissioned Ipsos MORI research on public attitudes to aviation noise. If that is to inform the public debate, it needs to be published. My question to the Minister, again, is when it will be published.

…..

I also want to ask the Minister about airspace redesign, a theme that has come up several times in the debate. Future approaches to the best use of airspace, bearing in mind changes and advances in technology, should inform issues of where to put new runways, and how they should be used. However, even without any airport expansion, the UK needs to modernise its outdated airspace management, in line with the EU single European sky programme. The benefits of doing that are obviously big, but the question is how we are to find a balance between dispersing routes between a number of corridors or concentrating on a number of routes. Either option has pros and cons for communities, and those that are negatively affected must be fairly compensated.

…..

In appearances before the Transport Committee in February the Secretary of State and Department for Transport officials promised to publish a consultation on future airspace “soon”. What they would not say was whether the delay—and possibly further delays—in looking at expansion would lead to further delay in looking at airspace management. How soon is soon? What timetable is the Minister working on?

…..

Does the Minister know what proportion of aircraft at each UK airport have not yet had such [presumably meaning stopping the A320 “whine”] devices installed? If he does not know, when will he find out, and what will he do to put such measures in place?

……

 

Andy Slaughter

He may have seen that the question was raised in the other place earlier in the week about when the independent aviation noise authority recommended by the Airports Commission would be set up. The reply from the Government was, “We are not going to do anything until the decision has been made.” That is a lacklustre approach.

…………………..

Robert Goodwill

We have a strong aviation sector here in the United Kingdom, and we should be proud of it, but we want to ensure that it does all it can to reduce the effect of noise on communities. I know that airports and other stakeholders, such as airlines, the CAA and NATS, all realise the importance of tackling noise if the industry is to continue to grow.
…….

(Master of understatement and example of evasive language typically used by the DfT and the aviation industry):
“As my hon. Friend mentioned, a recent change to the joining point for aircraft approaching Gatwick from the east has created concerns for some residents.”

…..

… the Government believe that it is usually better to concentrate aircraft over as few routes as possible in order to minimise the number of people affected. That has been Government policy for many years and works well for many airports across the country.

Our current policy makes it clear, however, that there may be instances in which multiple routes, such as those that can offer respite for communities, can be better. The Government believe that those decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, with local communities informing the process where possible.

…..
For aircraft arriving in the UK, there are no set routes leading to the final approach. That is because arriving aircraft approach UK airspace in a random pattern and then have to be sequenced for safe operation by air traffic controllers.

…..
My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling and my hon. Friend Jeremy Quin both referred to the lack of a night flight ban at Gatwick. The Government recognise the impact of noise disturbance at night and, for that reason, set night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick. The current restrictions end in October 2017, and we will consult on future arrangements later this year to ensure that the cost and benefits of night flights continue to be balanced.

…..

Performance-based navigation can vastly improve the accuracy with which aircraft can fly a designated route, and airspace systemisation will mean that they follow a more predictable route, reducing the need for interference from air traffic controllers. That will not only make air travel safer but reduce emissions and journey times. It will also offer the chance to reduce noise for communities around airports by allowing routes that can accurately avoid built-up areas and maximising the rate at which aircraft can climb or descend. For those benefits to be realised, however, we need to ensure that when those essential changes take place, they work for communities as much as possible.

…..
(This paragraph is just waffle with no real content):
My officials are constantly reviewing Government policies on airspace and aviation noise. One thing I have asked them to consider is whether we can ensure that communities are informed and, when appropriate, consulted when such changes are to be made. They have also been working to deliver the right policies by engaging with all stakeholders, including representatives of local communities. I know that they have found that engagement valuable in ensuring that communities’ interests are represented, and we will continue that dialogue when refining our policies.

…..
Tom Tugendhat summing up:

If I am honest, I am little disappointed that we have not yet had a better answer on what the words “significantly affected” mean, and that we have not had what I hoped we would have—a promise that the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS will take into account the communities on the ground when they are looking at the future airspace strategy. I think that is absolutely essential for all communities across our country.

…..
It is about the rights of citizens in our great country to be treated fairly and with justice when some of the planning decisions that are most important to them are taken. Were a motorway to be bulldozed through their back garden or a railway to be bulldozed under their land, they would have a right to be consulted. When the same is done in the air—when a motorway is put over their homes, their lives are disrupted, their sleep is interrupted and their children fail to get to school on time because they are tired—they get no say. That is surely wrong. I welcome the Minister beginning to answer that, and I know that this is a fight we will take forward.

…………………………………………………………………………………
Resolved,

That this House
has considered the effect of aircraft noise on local communities.

 

See the full transcript at   http://ift.tt/1U9LlzI

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/22WlHi7

Read more ...

Heathrow, sounding a bit desperate, might make a comment on night flights “in a few months’ time”

One of the conditions the Airports Commission put on a new Heathrow runway was a ban on night flights, between 11.30pm and 6am. Heathrow has been very unwilling to agree to this, with John Holland-Kaye saying in February that he was yet to “engage” with the government and airlines on the subject. He has also tried to claim there would be fewer night flights with a 3rd runway. Now, as the government is preoccupied with the EU referendum (23rd June) and not considering the runway question, and there has been a lot of negative publicity about Heathrow, John Holland-Kaye (bit of desperation?) is saying the airport may agree to the ban. He said:  “We’re consulting with airlines and local communities about how we can deliver what the Airports Commission is asking for. … We’ll be able to make a solid comment on that in a few months’ time.” But that statement gives no indication of actually getting rid of night flights.  It is unclear how consulting local communities is going to get airlines to alter the way they schedule flights, to avoid the night period.  Or whether it would mean more flights between 11 – 11.30pm, and more from 6 –  7am, reducing the benefit of the short period without planes. People need more than 6½ hours sleep, so worse noise at the shoulder periods would be little improvement.
.
Tweet

 

 

Heathrow softens stance on night flight ban for third runway

By Ben Martin (Telegraph)
21 APRIL 2016

The boss of Heathrow has signalled the airport may soften its stance on a night flight ban so that it can win Government backing for a £17.6bn third runway.

Last year, the Government-appointed Airports Commission concluded that Heathrow should only be allowed to expand if it agrees to a ban on all scheduled flights between 11.30pm and 6am so that local residents are not disturbed by jet noise.

Since then, Heathrow has said it is “confident” it can “significantly reduce” night flights but has fallen short of saying it will attempt to meet the Commission’s restriction. However, John Holland-Kaye, the airport’s chief executive, suggested today that the hub may go beyond a reduction in night flights and agree to the ban that the Commission recommended.

“We’re consulting with airlines and local communities about how we can deliver what the Airports Commission is asking for,” Mr Holland-Kaye said. “We’ll be able to make a solid comment on that in a few months’ time.”

An agreement on a night flight ban would be significant, as it is considered a stumbling block to Heathrow’s politically contentious runway plans. David Cameron, the prime minister, delayed a divisive decision on whether Heathrow or Gatwick should be allowed to expand until after European Union referendum on June 23.

“All policy is off the agenda while we go through the EU referendum, government has ground to a halt,” conceded Mr Holland-Kaye, who was speaking as privately owned Heathrow released first-quarter results. “Once the decks are cleared on June 23 we can get on and make the big decisions and the prime minster needs to be thinking about his legacy: how is he going to set up this country for future success?”

In the first quarter of the year, Heathrow’s revenues rose 3.2pc to £642m, while pre-tax profits before exceptional items increased to £23m from £19m a year earlier. On a statutory basis, the airport fell to a £39m quarterly pre-tax loss from a £71m profit in 2015. The loss was due to £62m in fair value adjustments to Heathrow’s investments and property.

….. and it continues  ….  (on drones)

http://ift.tt/24akuGx

.

 

---

Earlier: 

Holland-Kaye still not prepared to accept ban on night flights before 6am, even to get 3rd runway

February 11, 2016

Heathrow’s CEO, John Holland-Kaye, says the airport has yet to “engage” with the government and airlines about the possibility of ending night flights, before making any commitment. A ban on flights before 6am was one of the conditions the Airports Commission stipulated – in July – must be met for a 3rd runway to be built at Heathrow. But 7 months after the publication of the commission’s report, Heathrow is still avoiding giving any confirmation it is prepared to accept that requirement. In December the government announced there would be a further delay in making a runway location decision, which cam as an unpleasant surprise to Heathrow – which had presumed it would be given the nod, but with a range of conditions. Holland-Kaye has tried to avoid any condition on his hoped-for runway, that might be irksome or costly. He continues to make bullish statements about how likely he feels the runway will be approved. He tries to make out that there would be fewer night flights with a 3rd runway…. and he is yet to “engage” with the government on the subject. Heathrow, in its PR, mistakes local support for a 3rd runway by people employed by the airport, or hoping to work there – for (quite different) support more widely among those not depending on Heathrow for their income.

Click here to view full story…

Heathrow not willing to accept a ban on night flights, saying it constrains links to regional airports

November 30, 2015

John Holland-Kaye is hugely confident that he will get a new runway, saying he was now “80%” sure that David Cameron’s decision would be for Heathrow.  The Airports Commission suggested a condition that there would be a complete ban on flights between 11.30pm and 6am due to the unacceptable noise of night flights. Mr Holland-Kaye says night flights were not something to “throw away lightly”. Heathrow currently is allowed 5,800 night flights per year, meaning an average of 16 arriving each morning, typically between 4.30am and 6am. British Airways wants to keep night flights, and is Heathrow’s largest airline. Last week Mr Holland-Kaye said shifting night flights to later slots would damage connections to the rest of the UK. “If I talk to regional airports, they all want to see early morning arrivals into Heathrow. They want a flight that comes in from their airport before 8 o’clock in the morning so people can do a full day’s work, can do business in London or can connect to the first wave of long-haul flights going out. You are very quickly going to use up all of the first two hours of the morning if we have a curfew before 6 o’clock, particularly as we then have to move the 16 flights. That really constrains the ability of UK regions to get the benefits from an expanded hub. So it is not something we should throw away lightly.”  Heathrow’s links to regional airport would actually fall, with a 3rd runway, according to the Airports Commission.  

http://ift.tt/1Xrr1MV

.

---

John Holland-Kaye again will not commit to no Heathrow night flights (11.30pm to 6am) at Environmental Audit Committee hearing

November 5, 2015

When the Airports Commission final report was published on 1st July, one of the conditions of a 3rd Heathrow was that there should be no night flights. The report stated: “Following construction of a third runway at the airport there should be a ban on all scheduled night flights in the period 11:30pm to 6:00am” and “the additional capacity from a third runway would enable airlines to re-time very early morning arrivals.” Already by its statement on 6th July, Heathrow was trying to cast doubt on the conditions, with John Holland-Kaye saying: “I’m sure there is a package in there that we can agree with our local communities, with the airlines and with Government.” Asked directly again, at the Environmental Audit Committee session on 4th November, if Heathrow would accept no night flights, he said Heathrow “we are not in a position to do that yet.”  It had not yet accepted a ban on night flights, and the airport was “confident we will be able to find a way forward”  in discussions with airlines and government, and it could “significantly reduce” night flights.  Mr Holland-Kaye instead talked of the alleged economic benefit to the UK of flights between 4.30 and 6am. He was asked by Committee members whether the government should agree to a Heathrow runway, (perhaps by December) before Heathrow firmly committed to the no night flights condition. Mr Holland-Kaye could not give an answer.

Click here to view full story…

Heathrow may oppose ban on night flights, and ban on 4th runway, as price for 3rd runway

July 25, 2015

Heathrow is to press the government to loosen the conditions attached to a 3rd runway going ahead, unwilling to agree either to a ban on night flights or on a 4th runway. These were two important conditions suggested by the Airports Commission, to make a 3rd runway acceptable to its neighbours. However, Heathrow sees the conditions as negotiable, and John Holland-Kaye brazenly said he was confident Heathrow would be given the green light to expand and that “it wouldn’t make sense” for the prime minister to oppose a new runway now. Even if Heathrow does not agree to important conditions. Holland-Kaye wants to have a “conversation” about conditions with government. It is used to trying to have “conversations” with local residents, in which the airport generally manages to get its way, with only minimal concessions. Heathrow does not want lose lucrative night flights: “We have a significant number of routes to Hong Kong and Singapore. That’s getting key trading partners into the UK to start their business. It’s very popular because it’s an important route.” Holland-Kaye said the airport would “comment later on the package of conditions as a whole”, but he noted that “we do have the ability, physically” to build a 4th runway.

Click here to view full story…

 

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/24akwOF

Read more ...

Birmingham gets weekly flights to Beijing and Hangzhou with Beijing Capital Airlines

It is expected that direct flights by Beijing Capital Airlines, from Birmingham to Beijing and to Hangzhou, some 60 miles from Shanghai, will start on July 19th.  At present there are only direct UK flights to China from Heathrow, with flights 4 times per week from Manchester with Hainan Airways starting this June. The new flights from Birmingham will operate on Saturdays to Beijing and on Tuesdays to Shanghai (Hangzhou) using an Airbus A330-200, with a total of 211 seats (33 business and 178 economy).  Flights to the Far East were a major target for Birmingham airport, after its £40 million runway extension allowing use by heavier planes. Birmingham also, from March 2016, obtained 8 flights per week by Qatar Airways Boeing 787s between Birmingham and Qatar.  Birmingham also has a daily service by Emirates, using an A380, to Dubai. Birmingham airport says the two new scheduled service follows on from some direct charter flights, which saw over 7,000 Chinese visitors travel through Birmingham Airport during 2014 and 2015, and in 2015 “around 150,000 people flew between our region and China, with passengers preferring to travel from their local airport.”
.
Tweet
//

Read more ...

Three SHE public meetings in the Heathrow villages for residents threatened by 3rd runway

Residents from the Heathrow villages joined local MP John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington) and Chair of Stop Heathrow Expansion (SHE), Jackie Clark to discuss the impacts of a third runway on the local area. The meeting was the second of three planned around the area. John McDonnell outlined the latest developments with the campaign, and some of his activities on the issue in recent months. They also outlined the plan of action for later this year, if the Government announces its support for the runway.  John said:  “In Hayes we face being subject to more aircraft noise, more air pollution and a poorer quality of life. Even if the government opts to support a third runway in July or September, we will fight this in the courts, as we did last time. And we will win again.” The subject of most concern was air pollution, and in particular the impact on children.  Parts of Hayes and West Drayton are the most polluted areas near Heathrow, with air quality monitors register damaging level of NO2 above the EU limit of 40 micrograms per cubic metre. Other topics discussed throughout the evening included aircraft noise, traffic congestion and the political situation. Some residents remain unaware of the terrible impacts of a 3rd runway with a further 260,000 flights and associated road traffic including many more heavy goods vehicles
.
Tweet
//

Read more ...

Advertising Standards Authority rules against misleading Back Heathrow ad claiming 60% support for runway

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned an advert from “Back Heathrow” claiming that most local people back Heathrow expansion. “Back Heathrow” is a lobby group, funded through Heathrow with the aim of pushing for the 3rd runway. Back Heathrow ran a regional press ad headlined “Rallying for the runway” with the line “Don’t believe the hype. Most people living in communities near Heathrow Airport support its expansion.”  They claimed from polls there was 60% support.  The ASA says the claim was misleading, and the 60% figure had only been massaged up from 50% to that level by omitting the 15% who did not express an opinion. The ASA considered most consumers were likely to understand it to mean that a clear majority of those surveyed in the poll (the original sample) were in support of expansion. They ruled that removing the 15% was “not a suitable methodology by which to draw such a conclusion, and was misleading. The ad must not appear again in its current form, and “Back Heathrow” must not repeat these claims ” unless it held robust substantiation for them.”  This is a blow to “Back Heathrow,” the strategy of which has been to try to convince decision-makers that a majority of local people back a 3rd runway.  That claim looks flimsy. 
.
Tweet
//

Read more ...

Research paper done for GACC shows the techniques Gatwick uses to pay no UK corporation tax

It has been well known for several years that Gatwick airport uses a range of (legal) techniques and schemes to minimise its tax payments in the UK. Now a research paper – one of a series that local campaign GACC (the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) is producing – sets out much of the detail of how Gatwick does it.  The paper shows how Gatwick earns revenues of over £630 million per year, and yet pays no corporation tax.  While public attention – and anger – have concentrated on Google and Starbucks, Gatwick is playing the same game.  It pays no tax by complicated arrangements that include a combination of tax allowances for capital investment and deductibility of interest on debt, aided by a tangled web of inter-related company ownership in tax havens such as Luxembourg, Guernsey and the Cayman Islands. This complexity is not available to small companies. GACC says its new study is not easy reading for the layman but will be of considerable interest to investors who may be asked to fund a new runway, and to the DfT, which is at present trying to work on the new SE runway issue. Currently EU Finance Ministers will meet in Amsterdam on Friday 22 April to toughen company tax rules. That could cast doubt on the financial viability of a 2nd runway if some of the tax deals are tightened by by the EU and the G20.
.
Tweet
//

Read more ...

MP calls for drones to be registered especially those that can reach several thousand feet

David Burrowes, the MP for Enfield Southgate, has called for high-powered drone owners to be forced to sign a register after British Airways flight BA727 from Geneva was struck by a device as it came in to land at Heathrow on 17th, probably in the Richmond area.  Mr Burrowes, who sits on the Home Affairs Select Committee, said the gadgets can no longer be treated as an “innocent leisure pursuit” because of the security risks and potential for mass casualties.  He also suggested looking at introducing licences for some of the more sophisticated models in order to aid police and investigators. There have been numerous incidents of near misses in the past year or so, with Heathrow having the UK’s largest number.  Tens of thousands of drones, which can cost between £25 and £20,000 with the high-end ones being able to reach 6,000 feet, have been bought across Britain in the last few years and can be used without a licence or having to register with the CAA. Mr Burrowes said “at the very least there should be a register for the owner of drones.” Owners of those that are capable of rising to several thousand feet should be “willing to accept a basic registration system.” Currently the police do not have records of drone ownership. The CAA has a code for the use of drones.
.
Tweet
//

Read more ...