LUTON AIRPORT (AIRCRAFT NOISE) (Hansard, 27 April 1970)

§ Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)

Luton operated a municipal airport for many years without ill effects, but then, two years ago, jet aircraft were introduced and the effect was appalling. I first met the effect two years ago at 3.20 a.m. when, suddenly, there was a shattering roar apparently a few feet above the ceiling of my room and a jet aircraft passed low overhead. It was a most astonishing and ghastly experience, but I had to learn to live with it.

Since the arrival of those first early jets there has been a steady build up of aircraft at Luton Airport, and the intention is that this summer night flights will increase to as many as 56 per week, which I calculate is just sufficient to allow one flight per hour throughout the hours of darkness, thus ensuring that anyone living under the flight path gets no sleep at all.

The aircraft from Luton have to fly at a maximum height of 3,000 ft. because of the rules of London Airport. This ensures that even 10 miles away from the airport the noise is still bad. Anyone who lives under the flight paths has had a rotten time during the last two years. I have tried to express this on a number of occasions in the House and to the Board of Trade, both verbally and by letter. The indignation is on two grounds. The first is that aircraft are given immunity in respect of noise, so that it is not possible to sue on that ground alone. Secondly, at Luton we have a municipal airport operated for the financial benefit of the ratepayers. No one pretends that it is to help the town in providing essential services for its citizens. It is for the benefit of people coming from many miles away. It is operated at the cost and discomfort of people living in an entirely different county, who have no means of influencing Luton Corporation.

Over the years we have seen the formation of Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, which has done great work in the past two years in protesting about the actions of 1016 Luton Corporation. We have had an Airport Consultative Committee formed which has tried to influence the corporation and has succeeded this year in persuading it to reduce the number of night flights from the 70s to 56. Even that is not satisfactory. A public inquiry held by the Minister of Housing and Local Government into objections to a small expansion scheme for the airport has just been held. This was welcome because those who wished to object had the chance to state their case to this small scheme, knowing that around the corner much bigger schemes were in preparation by the corporation.

This inquiry was just being concluded when the news came of a change of aircraft flights. On 3rd and 10th March the Board of Trade issued what is called, in the laughing jargon of the Board of Trade, a Minimum Noise Routeing. Anyone who tries to sleep on a minimum noise route knows the effect. The route was changed with effect from 2nd April to disturb 100,000 people in my constituency. Instead of flying in a fairly straight line from Luton Airport and then directly over the towns of Tring and Wendover, the new flight path involves a change so that there is swing of 45 degrees and the aircraft heads directly towards Hemel Hempstead. There is then another swing of 55 degrees and the aircraft flies just short of Hemel Hempstead, over the towns of Berkhamsted and Tring.

Although the notification came out on 3rd and 10th March this change was not published. No information that I can discover was given to anyone concerned. The Town Clerk of Hemel Hempstead was informed five days before 2nd April.

As the Member for Parliament who had been active in this matter, I was not informed at all. There was no consultation with the local authorities, as far as I can make out. I would not expect that there was any with the Airport Consultative Committee, because it, in turn, appears to have taken no action. The significant feature is that coming as it did at the close of the public inquiry it ensured that these extra 100,000 people affected by aircraft noise were unable to register their protest.

I shall be grateful if the Minister of State will tell us the reasons for the 1017 change of route. It is alleged to be because of the success of those who have been living under the flight path and who have protested, but that is not what the Minister has told me. He said that it was because of the introduction of special rules at Luton. I have not seen details of the special rule zone. I understand that it has something to do with flying at Dunstable Downs airfield.

Last year, I suggested to the Board of Trade that it was reasonable that Dunstable Downs airfield should be entitled to continue its flying and should not be put out of business by Luton. This may have something to do with it. Dunstable Downs airfield, however, is concerned mainly with gliding, which does not operate at night. We are, therefore, unable to understand why the new routeing has been designed to disturb so many more people, particularly at night. I could understand it if there were a day route and a night route. It might then be more intelligible.

Public reaction during the past month has been very strong. Although the flight path as shown does not go over Hemel Hempstead, nevertheless the aircraft are somehow flying over Hemel Hempstead and make an appalling noise. To people accustomed to living in the silent countryside, a sudden roar is far worse than only a slight increase in noise for those living in a city, where there is a steady background of noise all the time. Those who are meeting this noise for the first time are shattered. How much worse will it be at the height of the tourist season?

I shall be grateful, therefore, if the Minister will tell us what can be done about it. First, where should complaints go? It has been suggested that people who are disturbed in the middle of the night should telephone the duty officer at the Board of Trade and let the Department know that this nuisance is occurring. Alternatively, it might be that one should telephone the Luton Corporation.

One constituent has found a new system of telephoning a ratepayer of Luton, whose name is chosen at random, and saying, " If I cannot sleep at half-past three in the morning, I do not see why you should, either." The first Luton ratepayer whom he telephoned was extremely sympathetic and said, " I entirely see your point. I am always 1018 happy to see my rate bill going down because of the operations of Luton Airport, but now, I understand, we are making a thorough nuisance of ourselves somewhere else, and I apologise."

The change of route will cause severe discomfort to the majority of my constituents. It has been introduced without consultation. I ask the Minister of State to come forward with new proposals, after due consultation, which will avoid the severe effects of the present routeing.

§ The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Goronwy Roberts)

I do not think that the constituents of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) can complain about the manner in which he has represented their interests in the House tonight. He has put forward very fairly and firmly views which, I know, must be shared by many of them.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member on the subject of noise. Aircraft noise disturbance causes many people most acute distress in many parts of the country, and I for one am in no doubt that there is need for an effective, collaborative effort between all the bodies, public and private, that can contribute towards alleviating the problem. The hon. Member will recall that last week I had the privilege of moving an aircraft noise Order by means of which we definitely look forward, quite soon, to tackling this problem at the source, namely, in providing new aircraft with quieter mechanisms.

At the level of Government action. we have shown—not least by the introduction of that Order—that we are determined to take all practicable measures to control the problem of aircraft noise. The Luton Airport authorities, through the various noise abatement measures they have introduced at the airport, have shown a clear awareness of the need to protect the amenity of the surrounding countryside.

I should, perhaps, clarify one question, namely, which authority is responsible for what measures at Luton Airport. In practice, of course, my officials work very closely with Luton Corporation, which owns the airport. But it often happens that misunderstandings arise because the Government—the Board of Trade do not have the same powers to take 1019 measures to protect amenity as we have at British Airports Authority airports, such as Heathrow and Gatwick.

We have clear statutory powers and responsibilities for matters affecting aviation safety, but not for the control of noise disturbance at municipal airports such as Luton. Hence the establishment of minimum noise routes and the other noise abatement measures at Luton, which are matters on which the Board of Trade advises but which are the ultimate responsibility of Luton Corporation.

It may be helpful if I outline the background leading up to the change in the minimum noise route for aircraft taking off from Luton Airport—the change in the westerly flight path from Luton—which is the central issue which the hon. Gentleman has raised tonight.

It had been known for some time that the growth of aviation activity in the northern part of the London terminal area, beneath which Luton Airport is situated, would eventually reach the scale when greater airspace protection would be needed for public transport operations into and out of Luton Airport. Last summer, anxieties were expressed about safety; and safety in the air is necessarily and rightly a matter on which there must be no compromise.

Accordingly, when the scale of air traffic indicated that the time was approaching for new safety arrangements to be introduced, the Board of Trade carried out a study of the route structure of the North London complex. This study also had to take into account the gliding activity to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which takes place nearby at Dunstable, and, the effect of traffic and routes into and out of Heathrow and Gatwick.

The outcome of this study was a recommendation in favour of creating a "special rules zone" around Luton Airport, and adjacent "special rules areas" Within the special zone and special areas, no aircraft may fly, unless authorised exceptionally, without obtaining permission from Luton air traffic control, thereby ensuring that use of the airspace in question is supervised in one place. While in the special zone and special areas the commander of the aircraft must remain in constant touch with Luton air 1020 traffic control and comply with any instructions given.

Hon. Members will appreciate that these arrangements had to be discussed with various aviation interests before they could finally be settled. Once having been settled, it was important to bring them into effect as quickly as possible. This was done on 2nd April. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not be informed about this beforehand, but as he will see from the NOTAM which sets out the new arrangements, account has been taken of the points he put to my predecessor in correspondence last year.

As part of the essential safety arrangements which are now called for it became necessary that westerly departures from Luton Airport should be rerouted further south so as to ensure that aircraft kept within the London T.M.A. and remained well clear of gliding activities at Dunstable. This entailed a revision of the minimum noise routes which was agreed by the Luton authorities. These changes, which I have already notified to the hon. Member, had to come into effect on the same day as the setting up of the special rules zone and special rules area, i.e. 2nd April.

Because of the speed with which these changes had to be agreed and put into effect, I understand that the Luton authorities had no opportunity to consult local interests. However, speedy action was called for, and, in fact, the nature of the constraints upon the new route structure is such that there is no practicable alternative. The narrow limitations of the Dunstable gliding area to the north, and the location of the heavily built-up areas of Berkhamsted and Hemel Hempstead to the south left no room within which to find alternative routes to those now being followed.

I would stress that the new routes avoid putting the flight paths over built-up areas. The whole object of minimum noise routes is to avoid those areas to the greatest extent possible, and I believe that this is what has been accomplished. We cannot avoid all populated areas, but only the densely populated areas where more people would be disturbed. The new route comprises a 20-degree left turn shortly after take-off which is designed to avoid the southern tip of Luton itself; 1021 there is a further 20 degree left turn a mile or so further on, on reaching the M1 motorway, so as to avoid Markyate; and then there is a subsequent right turn about four miles further on to route aircraft in the direction of Beacon Hill.

I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that this series of manoeuvres, all during the difficult and exacting takeoff phase of flight, are manoeuvres which put a heavy burden on to pilots. However, they are imposed for the benefit of people on the ground. The last right-hand turn which I mentioned is designed to take place over a mile to the north of Hemel Hempstead, but the subsequent flight path may just touch the northern tip of Berkhamsted. But it is not possible to make the turn earlier because, whereas the two previous left hand turns can be made from visual aids, the next stage of the route depends on following guidance from a beacon at Bovingdon until picking up a radial from Garston when the right-hand turn is to be made.

I can only express my sincere and deep regret that the new minimum noise route will cause some additional disturbance to some of Berkhamsted's inhabitants But it is fair also to state that the change should bring substantial benefit to Tring and Little Gaddesden, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have been the source of many complaints in the past, and which, I well know, have been pressed by him.

It may be, however, that some of the anxieties about flights over built-up areas have been due to reports that have appeared in local newspapers about a possible new route towards the south between Berkhamsted and Hemel Hempstead. There is a misunderstanding here which I shall attempt to explain. I think that it is clear that if an aircraft can climb steeply over open country after take-off, before reaching built-up areas, this is one of the best forms of noise abatement procedure. For air traffic control reasons, however, this is not always possible; in the case of Luton Airport this would mean entering the busy London terminal area, the base of which commences at 2,500 feet.

However, whenever traffic conditions allow, aircraft are permitted by the London Air Traffic Control Centre to 1022 climb as rapidly as possible over the fairly open country between the M1 and Hemel Hempstead; and, once they have reached a height of approximately 3,000 feet, are allowed to continue due south on a flight path that would take them between Berkhamsted and Hemel Hempstead. At this point, they should be at a height of at least 5,000 feet. If, however, there is too much traffic in the London T.M.A. the aircraft would follow the minimum noise route previously mentioned at a lower height.

I should like to make it clear that these arrangements for continuing flights to the south were in existence before the minimum noise route was changed; the latter route is the only recent change affecting the hon. Member's constituency.

I would be the first to agree that my reasons are geographical and technical, but I know that the hon. Gentleman wants them on record so that he can study and discuss them with his constituents. I hope that my explanation of the reasons why Luton was not able to have local consultations is acceptable to him. I am satisfied that it was necessary to move quickly.

Luton has a good record of local consultation. The hon. Gentleman himself mentioned the way in which the number of night jet flights was reduced from about 70 to 56. This was an earnest of the readiness to listen to local representations.

I also hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that no discourtesy was intended in not sending him a copy of the NOTAM. This was due to a mechanical defect which I would be glad to put right if I did not know that the hon. Gentleman has been assiduous enough to put it right himself.

I want to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his constant argument on behalf of his constituents. I hope that he will agree, on reflection, that, while some of his constituents may be adversely affected by this necessary change of route, a large number of others will benefit.