Aviation Strategy

Written evidence from Mrs Caroline Tayler, Mrs Jane Vogt

and Mr Stuart McLachlan (AS 12)

The following submission for consideration by the Committee is in response to question 3a in the Terms of Reference. The aim is to draw the Committee’s attention to the unintended consequences of Government policy in relation to the impact of aircraft noise on rural communities

3a. Are the Government’s proposals to manage the impact of aviation on the local environment sufficient, particularly in terms of reducing the impact of noise on local residents?

1. The Draft Aviation Policy Framework states ‘our overall objective is to aim to limit and reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise’.

2. The above intention might appear good, but in order to comply with the recommendation to reduce the number of people affected, airport operators are likely to preferentially route aircraft over villages and communities in rural areas with lower population density.

3. The resulting concentration of aircraft over fewer people means that these rural communities will have far higher levels of aircraft noise imposed on them than on urban communities.

4. Rural areas, particularly Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, have low levels of background noise making aircraft noise very intrusive. High ground compounds the problem, as arriving and departing aircraft are obviously closer, for example in the High Weald AONB and Surrey Hills AONB around Gatwick.

5. The concentration of aircraft noise over rural residents by arriving and departing aircraft following similar tracks causes great distress and despair. At times some residents endure low flying aircraft passing overhead every two minutes. There are also serious health implications associated with long term exposure to noise.

6. Many rural businesses, particularly those associated with tourism, depend on the tranquillity that is associated with the low population density in the countryside and especially within an AONB. The rural economy, particularly in an AONB where planning restrictions limit activities, is fragile and dependent on maintaining the tranquillity that attracts tourists if it is to prosper.

7. The above points demonstrate the damage that can be done to the well- being of rural communities and viability of rural businesses where high levels of noise are imposed by concentration of aircraft. Planning restrictions protect communities at ground level, but the same level of protection is not afforded to communities from disturbance over their heads.

8. Surrey Hills AONB facts, www.surreyhills.org. Designated in 1958 as a unique landscape in the UK. Over 600,000 visitors during 2009 (figures from the National Trust); the land is up to 1000 feet in elevation with many local businesses dependant on tourism particularly at weekends. On a given Sunday up to 15 take-off aircraft pass very close to the AONB between 6 and 7am. Also, over 1 million visitors go to the High Weald AONB www.highweald.org every year. 

9. The Government’s overall objective to reduce the number of people affected is therefore not sufficiently robust nor properly thought out. By reducing the number of people affected, the levels of noise on those still affected would significantly increase and this is not acceptable.

10. Despite making the lives of some people a misery by concentrating aircraft movements over them, the Government would still be able to claim that it had succeeded in its objective and few would ask by what means this had been achieved.

11. The Government should therefore direct its efforts towards mitigating the effects of aircraft noise for everyone rather than being content with just reducing numbers of people affected. Concentrating aircraft over rural communities is not an acceptable solution to the problem of aircraft noise. Current Government policy does not sufficiently protect people living in the countryside from what can at times be continuous and overwhelming aircraft noise.

8 October 2012