To help reduce unfair noise over Windsor, the WWRA have written to support Heathrow’s taxi-way planning appeal. Here’s what we said.
You can copy the letter and support Heathrow. Click here to get a pdf version of the letter.
You can find out how to support the appeal by reading our article, “Heathrow Noise Deadline – take action” – click here to read it.
Read Councillor Da Costa’s personal letter of support, which reports on the documented, and disastrous effect of aircraft noise on local residents at, “Councillor Da Costa supports the Heathrow planning appeal”
But take action quickly. It’s now or never.
Want to know what the fuss is all about?
Read our article, “A guide to the Heathrow Airport Planning Appeal”
I wish you peaceful days, and peaceful nights.
Wisdom
WWRA letter in support of Heathrow’s planning appeal to allow fairer distribution of flights on Easterly operations
16th November 2014
The Case Officer (APP/R5510/A/14/2225774) The Planning Inspectorate 3/26 Hawk Wing Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol, BS1 6PN
FAO Helen Skinner helen.skinner@pins.gsi.gov.uk
Dear Madam
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Appeal by Heathrow Airport Limited Site at Northern Runway, Heathrow Airport Ref: APP/R5510/A/14/2225774I am writing to support the appeal by Heathrow Airport Limited. I am the Chair of the West Windsor Residents’ Association, which is a formally constituted body representing over 1,100 households situated in the residential area that lies to the west of the town of Windsor.
Residents living in this area have a keen interest in seeing the government’s decision to repeal the Cranford Agreement, as this should bring respite to the incessant daytime noise and pollution that they experience from overflights landing at Heathrow, when landing in an easterly direction. These flights start first thing in the morning and continue until last thing at night.
Aircraft movements
In refusing the application now subject to this appeal, the London Borough of Hillingdon states that:
‘The scheme would facilitate aircraft movements /operations (including queuing) and the application fails to demonstrate that these would not result in significant noise impacts on the and well-being of residential populations, users of schools and community facilities.’
The Borough also argues that ‘adequate and sufficient mitigation measures’ are not proposed.
It further states that there is a ‘failure to demonstrate that proposal would not result in an unacceptable deterioration in local air quality & failure to propose specific mitigation measures to minimise the exposure of the nearby impacted communities to the resultant polluted air.’
We contend that the Borough has no just reason to object to ‘aircraft movements’ as this would, in many ways, seek to apply the principle of “Eujus est solum ejus ad coelum” or ownership of the airspace above property, by using adopted policies for which they were not intended.
Since that principle has long been set aside to allow the free passage of aircraft we believe that such a reason for refusal is invalid
The Secretary of State for Transport
The Secretary of State for Transport announced in January 2009 that the Cranford Agreement will end and this was reaffirmed by the Minister of State for Transport in September 2010. The London Borough of Hillingdon should not be permitted to frustrate that decision by refusing permission for this work that will enable runway alternation to be adopted.
We do not dispute that there should be adequate mitigation measures to deal with the unacceptable, adverse impacts of this proposal and we submit that similar standards of mitigation should be applied to all areas in the vicinity of the airport.
Proposed acoustic screen
Another reason for refusal, cited by the Borough is:
‘Failure to demonstrate that the proposed acoustic screen by virtue of its height and overall size would not represent an incongruous and visually dominant form of development and would not harm the character and appearance of the wider area, and detract from the openness of the site and therefore be harmful to the Green Belt.’
This acoustic screen appears to be a necessary mitigation measure and the London Borough of Hillingdon should therefore accept that it should be built.
The Cranford Agreement
This attempt by the London Borough of Hillingdon to continue the prevention of the overflight of Cranford is inconsistent with previous decisions.
When the Cranford Agreement was originally made in the 1950’s, its purpose was to avoid over flight of the area immediately to the east of the northern runway as far as practicable, except in exceptionalcircumstances, in other words, except during peak periods. At the outset it applied to both take-offs and landings.
At that time there were only 36,000 aircraft movements per annum and no consideration appears to have been given to possible subsequent adverse affects on other locations in the vicinity of the airport.
As the number of aircraft movements increased, the limitations on landing over Cranford were removed. Cranford thus became affected by landings whenever there was a wind from the west. This became a key issue in allowing runway alternation for aircraft landing and taking off towards the west, relieving excessive concentration of disturbance to those communities to the east of the southern runway (27L/09R.)
The Adverse Impact on Communities living to the West of the Airport
No such consideration was given to those communities to the west of the northern runway (09L/27R) in spite of the fact that the northern runway had since been extended 3,500 ft. to the west, which would have permitted a greater altitude to be attained on take-off over Cranford, diminishing the adverse affect on that community.
There are now 480,000 aircraft movements (take-offs and landings). When the wind is from the west, runway alternation provides periods of relief to communities living to the east of the airport. When the wind is from the east, landings on the northern runway, 09L, are incessant and take-offs on 09R are similar with no relief provided.
An easterly wind can be expected approximately 30% of the time.
In such circumstances the area immediately west of the northern runway currently suffers approximately 80% more movements, i.e. landings and takeoffs than the area immediately west of the southern runway. Similarly the area immediately east of the southern runway suffers approximately 80% more movements than the area immediately east of the northern runway.
This level of prolonged disturbance that can be experienced is demonstrated by the following movement data supplied by Heathrow for the 31 days of May 2008:
| Runway | Landings | Runway | Take-offs | Total |
| 09L | 16699 | 27R | 1502 | 18366 |
| 09R | 851 | 27L | 1618 | 2429 |
| Take-offs | Landings | |||
| 09R | 17539 | 27L | 1317 | 18856 |
| 09L | 1 | 27R | 1687 | 1688 |
More recently during the first 21 days of September 2014 the distribution for landings only was as follows:
| Westbound | Eastbound | |||
| Sept | 27L | 27R | 09L | 09R |
| 1 | 357 | 318 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 597 | 83 |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 616 | 53 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 611 | 59 |
| 5 | 215 | 305 | 125 | 33 |
| 6 | 342 | 297 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | 348 | 425 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | 336 | 339 | 0 | 0 |
| 9 | 181 | 350 | 126 | 21 |
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 619 | 54 |
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 615 | 61 |
| 12 | 0 | 0 | 623 | 57 |
| 13 | 0 | 0 | 579 | 65 |
| 14 | 0 | 0 | 614 | 62 |
| 15 | 0 | 0 | 606 | 66 |
| 16 | 0 | 0 | 598 | 63 |
| 17 | 0 | 0 | 605 | 59 |
| 18 | 0 | 0 | 626 | 43 |
| 19 | 19 | 268 | 347 | 38 |
| 20 | 8 | 0 | 593 | 32 |
| 21 | 0 | 0 | 605 | 62 |
| Sum: | 1,806 | 2,302 | 9,105 | 911 |
In these three weeks, over 9,000 flights passed over residents living in Windsor, using exactly the same approach path. There are lengthy periods when flights arrive every minute and there was no respite to the incessant daytime noise and pollution that residents experienced.
Our weather pattern is such that landings in an easterly direction are frequently necessary and these flights start first thing in the morning and continue until last thing at night. In contrast, there is an even distribution of air movements between the two runways when there are westerly operations.
Summary requests
- On behalf of the many residents living in this area, I call upon you to grant approval to the Heathrow Airport Limited, to allow them to carry out this work and thereby be able to introduce runway alternation.
- We urge that there should be adequate mitigation measures to deal with the unacceptable, adverse impacts of this proposal and we submit that similar standards of mitigation should be applied to all areas in the vicinity of the airport.
- I request that I, or a representative, might be allowed to speak at the Inquiry if any matters of especial relevance to WWRA arise during the Inquiry
- I would very much appreciate advice upon the Inspector’s decision
Yours faithfully
___________________
Mr Wisdom Da Costa
Chair, West Windsor Residents’ Association
Mobile: