Ins. Response

Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign GACC

Campaign Office Phone & fax

Stan Hill 01293 863 369

Charlwood www.gacc.org.uk

Surrey RH6 OEP gacc@btconnect.co.uk

GACC Response to the

Gatwick Noise Insulation Scheme for Homes

1. While we give a modest welcome to these proposals, it is sad that they come nearly 50 years too late. Gatwick was opened as a major airport in 1958, and since then tens of thousands of people have suffered intolerable noise. Previous grants for noise insulation have covered a very restricted area. Many people have had to move away, and have had to sell their houses at a sizeable loss (compared to similar

properties elsewhere). Many others have put in double glazing at their own expense.

2. While we understand that the proposed phasing for the introduction of the scheme over three years may make for administrative convenience, we think it may confuse the public. People will hear about the scheme but not know when to apply. It would be preferable to introduce all three schemes at the same time, as soon as possible.

3. Moreover, we suggest that the scheme should be open-ended and not have a cut-off point in 2011. Some people, because of changing family circumstances, may not be able to take advantage of the grants before 2011, and there does not seem to be any reason, other than administrative convenience for BAA, why they should not apply at a later date. If someone does not take up the grant, and sells their house, we see no reason why the new owners should not be able to apply for a grant after 2011. (It might be argued that they will be able to purchase the house more cheaply, but that is to suggest that the present owner should be penalised for not applying.)

4. We understand that the noise contours shown on figure 1 are adjusted to take account of the height of the land. That needs to be confirmed. It is important for houses on the high ground west of the airport in Charlwood, Rusper and Newdigate parishes.

Daytime air noise scheme

5. The area covered by this scheme (shown by the blue line on figure 1) is far too small. Thousands of people living under the flight paths up to 10 or 15 miles from the

airport suffer annoyance and disturbance.

6. The area in which it is suggested that grants should be available is defined by the 66 leq contour. Under the planning guidance, PPG 24, no new houses are permitted to be built within this high noise zone.

7. PPG 24 also lays down that all new houses built within the 57 leq contour may be subject to conditions that they be fitted with double glazing. It is illogical to say that new houses must have double glazing but that a similar criterion should not apply to grants for existing houses.

8. It is not only illogical but also unfair. Why should purchasers of new houses be forced to pay for double glazing when the BAA which is responsible for the noise makes no contribution?

9. We therefore suggest that the BAA grant scheme should be extended to cover all houses within the 57 leq contour. This would go beyond what was suggested in the Air Transport White Paper, and we recognise that if the same criterion were applied at Heathrow the cost would be very high. That merely demonstrates that – contrary to government policy - air travel does not cover its environmental cost

The night-time air noise scheme

10. The area covered by this scheme (shown by the green line in figure 1) is slightly larger than that for day-time noise but is still small. We realise that the 90 SEL contour is based on research showing this is the area within which people tend to be woken by night flights. However we believe that the research is flawed. Many people learn to sleep through aircraft noise at night, just as round-the-world sailors get used to sleeping in a small boat in a rough sea. But that is no excuse for airlines to impose unpleasant conditions on local residents.

11. It is disappointing that this scheme, and the ground noise scheme, only cover bedrooms. Practical problems will be caused because the use of rooms may change. For example, infirm people may need to convert a downstairs room into a bedroom. Or a family may use an upstairs room as a study but may need to convert it to a bedroom if another child arrives. We suggest that the scheme should cover all upstairs rooms, with an option to include one downstairs room instead of one upstairs room.

12. Problems are also likely to arise in the case of bungalows in defining which rooms are bedrooms. We suggest that the scheme should cover all rooms except the kitchen.

The ground noise scheme

13. We welcome this scheme which represents the first time that practical help has been given for homes which suffer from airport ground noise. It will benefit a substantial number of people living in Hookwood and the south western part of Horley.

14. The consultation offers a choice between option a. (the black line in figure 2) in which the boundary of the scheme is drawn exactly 500 m from the airport boundary, and option b. (the red line) with the boundary of the scheme following natural boundaries. In order to provide a recognisable boundary for the scheme, we prefer option b.

15. Although it is stated that option b. covers at least as many houses as option a, there are a few places where the red line is inside the black line. This means that some houses which are less than 500 m from the airport boundary, and which are thus defined as suffering from ground noise, would be excluded from grants. We consider that this would give rise to justified complaints. The problem could be solved, at small cost, by adjusting the red line so that it includes all houses within 500 m of the airport boundary.

Conclusion

16. The time has come, we believe, for BAA to be more generous. Under CAA price regulation the cost can be recouped from the airlines. Airlines can recoup the cost by putting up fares. Air fares have fallen dramatically in the past ten years. Increasing fares would slightly reduce demand which would be beneficial since aviation is the industry with the fastest growing contribution to climate change.

17. According to the CAA, the average household income of air passengers at Gatwick is over £50,000 a year. There is no reason why air passengers should continue to benefit at the expense of local residents.

February 2007