Bedford Park Society Advice On How To Complete Heathrow Consultation |
||||
Call on residents to oppose the airport expansion plans by responding soon
The Bedford Park Society has issued advice for residents who wish to complete the Heathrow Airport consultation document. You can also read more on their website about the impacts of the airport's plans on local residents. The deadline for the consultation is 4 March. Suggested responses to Heathrow Airspace and Future Operations consultation - the answers recommended are in bold print. NOTE: Please be aware that the numbering on the Heathrow online questionnaire is not sequential, so is not entirely consistent with the numbering below. 1a. Do you support our proposals for a noise objective? Yes/ No/ I don’t know No. 1b. Please provide any comments you have on our proposals for a noise objective: Whilst I fully support the regulatory constraints that are being
placed on Heathrow with regard to the impact that its expansion plans
may have on noise, air quality and traffic, I do not believe that the
noise objective sufficiently reflects those constraints. So, I believe
it should state: 1c. Please provide any other comments or suggestions you have on our proposed approach to developing a package of noise measures for an expanded Heathrow: I agree with Heathrow’s proposal, under the Balanced Approach,
that non-restrictive measures (such as incentivising the use of quieter
aircraft and requiring aircraft to use quieter operating measures) should
be applied first, before any restrictive measures such as bans or quotas
are used. Respite through runway and airspace alternation 2a. Would you prefer to have longer periods of respite less frequently (all day on some days but no relief on other days) or a shorter period of respite (e.g. for 4-5 hours) every day? Please tick one of the following options: A longer period of respite, but not every day/ A shorter period of respite every day Yes No/ I don’t know A shorter period of respite every day. 2b. Please tell us the reasons for your preference: Please see answers to 2a above. In addition I believe it is important for there to be some respite every day to minimise to the greatest extent possible the daily irritation from aircraft noise. 2c. Please provide any other comments or suggestions you have on runway and airspace alternation: It is not consistent with design principles 6 b and f for any
flight paths to be selected which would involve flights over the Bedford
Park Conservation Area in London W4 1 and so in principle this question
is not relevant to our area. Directional preference 3a. Should we prefer westerly operations during the day and easterly operations at night to reduce the total number of people affected by noise? Yes/ No/ I don’t know No. 3b. Please tell us the reasons for your answer: It is not consistent with design principles 6b and f for any flight
paths to be selected, which would involve flights over the Bedford Park
Conservation Area and surrounding neighbourhood in London W4 1 and so
in principle this question is not relevant to our area. 3c. Should we sometimes intervene to change the direction of arriving and departing aircraft to provide relief from prolonged periods of operating in one direction – even if that means slightly increasing the number of people affected by noise? Yes/ No/ I don’t know No. 3d. Please tell us the reasons for your answer: The consultation paper states that a managed preference would be operated in accordance with “a set of criteria or rules designed to limit overall noise effects on communities and to help deliver periods of relief for them.” I would wish to see tighter rules so that it is absolutely clear where planes can and cannot fly and in what circumstances before being able to support any proposal of this nature.
It is not consistent with design principles 6b and f for any flight paths to be selected, which would involve flights over the Bedford Park Conservation Area and surrounding neighbourhood in London W4 1 and so in principle this question is not relevant to our area.
4a. To help inform our consideration of the options, we want to know whether you would prefer for us to: Option 1 – Use one runway for scheduled arrivals from 5.30am (runway time 5.15am) Option 2 – Use two runways for scheduled arrivals from 5.45am (runway time 5.30am) Yes/ No/ I don’t know Option 1. 4b. Please tell us the reasons for your preference: Communities would benefit from a later start two out of every three days. 4c. Please provide any other comments or suggestions you might have on early morning arrivals: It is not consistent with design principles 6b and f for any flight
paths to be selected, which would involve flights over the Bedford Park
Conservation Area and surrounding neighbourhood in London W4 1 and so
in principle this question is not relevant to our area. Other night restrictions 5a. Please provide any comments or suggestions on how we should encourage
the use of the quietest type of aircraft at night (outside the proposed
scheduled night flight ban):
I do not support proposals for any night flights over the Bedford
Park Conservation Area and surrounding neighbourhood, as this would prioritise
economic considerations over the health of residents.
6. To answer this question, please look at the design envelopes for expansion online using the postcode checker or look at them in our document Heathrow’s airspace design principles for expansion. What sites or local factors should we be aware of in your area (or other area of interest to you), when designing flight paths for an expanded three-runway Heathrow? Please give enough information (e.g. postcode, address or place name) for us to identify the site(s) or local factor(s) you are referring to and tell us why you think it is important: I object in the strongest terms to any new flight paths directly
over or close to the Bedford Park Conservation Area and surrounding neighbourhood,
and, therefore, to Bedford Park being covered by any design envelopes,
and in particular two of the design envelopes for an expanded Heathrow
A1 and D2. 7. To answer this question, please look at the design envelopes for Independent Parallel Approaches (IPA) online using the postcode checker or look at them in our document Making better use of our existing runways. What sites or local factors should we be aware of in your area (or other area of interest to you), when designing new arrival flight paths to make better use of our existing two runways? Please give enough information (e.g. postcode, address or place name) for us to identify the site(s) or local factor(s) you are referring to and tell us why you think this local factor is important: Please tick the box if you would like your response to 6a to be copied as a response to 6b. I wish to make the same points in relation to this question as in relation to question 6. However, the design envelopes relevant to the question are IPA A1 and IPA A2 and the relevant design principles are IPA design principles 6d, e and f. These are derived from your website, although your Making better use of existing runways document says the IPA design principles are yet to be agreed with the CAA. 8. Please provide any other comments you have relating to the airspace elements of the consultation: I wish to highlight and re-iterate that the airspace proposals contravene the design principles Heathrow have agreed, in particular the principle to minimise the number of newly overflown people. I also wish to highlight that these proposals put economic and business interests above the health of local communities, and this should not be permitted. I, therefore, object strongly to the airspace proposals.
9. Having considered everything within the consultation, do you have any other comments? I strongly object to the fact that Heathrow have failed to hold
a consultation event in Chiswick, an area of some 35,000 people who will
be so badly affected if the proposals were to be implemented, with so
many newly overflown homes (should Heathrow fail to comply with its design
principles), which leads me to question the validity of the consultation.
You state on your website that the questionnaire will take an estimated 45 minutes to complete. This is a huge underestimate if people are to read, digest and consider the material and respond thoughtfully. It is an enormous burden on individuals affected by these proposals and a serious impediment to participation. The consultation encompasses extraordinarily complex issues, which are not clearly enough explained to enable even extremely well educated readers to understand them (a difficulty shared by Heathrow representatives at consultation events), and includes questions that suggest binary answers are appropriate when they are not. As such, this is a deeply flawed process. 11. Please tell us how you found out about this consultation: Leaflet through your door Newspaper advert/ Online advert/ Billboard/Outside advertising Local radio/ Other (please specify): National newspaper, then leaflet through letterboxes and local media website. February 13, 2019 ![]() |