Flight Path Patterns (RAF Upper Heyford) (Hansard, 26 May 1989)

§ Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury)

I last raised this issue in the House on 30 November 1988, as reported at columns 849–56 of Hansard. As the time for the debate is limited, I shall not repeat the full background to the anxieties that caused me to seek a further debate on this important issue. As I wish to raise a considerable number of issues and some of them are complex, I shall understand if my hon. Friend the Minister is unable to respond to them in full today and chooses to write to me. I hope that he will reflect on what I have to say and will not shut the door on my suggestions but will give them some consideration and time.

The House will recall that there was a change of flight path at RAF Upper Heyford resulting in a substantial increase in aircraft noise suffered by local people. The chief environmental health officer of Cherwell district council reported the matter last October, stating: The nature and magnitude of the noise really has to be experienced for its effects upon people trying to lead a normal life to be truly appreciated…As a direct result of the changed aircraft departure routes on 1 June 1988 the rural communities…have suffered severe adverse effects by the introduction of aircraft noise levels far in excess of those which previously prevailed. The changed flight paths have not reduced the high noise levels already experienced by other villages…but has in some cases increased the level being experienced…Cherwell District Council…some years ago advised that new building should not be permitted in areas subject to noise levels in excess of 75 dBA…and this view has been upheld by Inspectors at Planning Inquiries. It is therefore obvious that noise in excess of that level should not be brought to existing settlements. As a consequence of the change in flight paths, substantial increases in noise were brought to existing settlements and that led to the debate last November. During that debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, then the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, undertook that there would be a full study of the costs and implications of realigning the runway. That study was completed earlier this year and my hon. Friend the Minister told a meeting of representatives of local communities that the cost of realigning the runway would be at least £300 million. That meant that it would be impossible. Undoubtedly that was a deeply disappointing result for the many people who had hoped that it might be possible to find a technical solution to enable noise levels to return to something similar to what they were prior to 1 June last year.

Following my hon. Friend's announcement, there are a number of continuing worries. First, there is still concern at the original decision to change the flight paths. There is a suspicion that the change was carried out not for reasons of safety but for convenience, or in anticipation of new planes, further planes or new weapons systems being introduced at Upper Heyford. Part of that suspicion arises because of conflicting accounts about who requested the change in flight paths.

In a letter to me last July, my hon. Friend the present Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health said: 1309 F111s…no longer have enough extra thrust to perform manoevres with acceptable reserves for safety sufficient to meet the stringent safety margins required by the United States air force. Yet, last October, Colonel Nameth of the United States Air Force department in Washington wrote to a local resident saying the Ministry of Defence proposed a change in the take off pattern and that the Ministry of Defence has recently adjusted the flight paths for RAF Upper Heyford. Clearly, the Government's prime responsibility towards the communities around the base must be to ensure that flying activities are carried out as safely as possible. If the old flight paths have become unsafe, clearly the United States Air Force and the Ministry of Defence were under a duty of care not to allow planes to continue to fly on them.

Given that a sizeable number of local people remain unconvinced about the merits of the original decision, I hope that some effort will be made in the near future by the Royal Air Force commander at Upper Heyford, Squadron Leader Rice, and by the United States Air Force commander, Colonel Downer, to provide an opportunity for briefing local people about why the changes were made. Perhaps they could give local people a chance to meet and question some of the pilots involved. It must be in the best interests of both the United States Air Force and the Ministry of Defence for local people to be confident that the original changes in flight paths were taken with their best interests at heart and for no other reason.

There is also concern to ensure that planes adhere to the correct existing flight paths and that, within the present parameters, everything possible is done to reduce noise disturbance. I had a constructive and positive meeting with Colonel Downer and Squadron Leader Rice last week. I am grateful to both of them for their positive approach to these difficulties. I was glad to hear that they have set up a noise abatement group of senior officers at the base to give consideration to any ideas which might reduce noise levels. That demonstrates that people working at the base are conscious of the increasing impact that their activities have on local communities and are starting to think about noise and how it might be reduced.

I was also glad to hear that the amount of afternoon and early evening flying is to be substantially reduced. One of the most irksome matters for local people has been the considerable amount of later afternoon and early evening flying around the base, particularly in the summer months when planes return from missions and carry out practice circuits and bumps around the base. I was told that those activities have now been scrubbed, and when planes return to the base they will simply land.

There has also been concern about whether the planes adhere sufficiently strictly to the present designated flight patterns west of the base. I have been told that, whenever flying activity takes place there, a pilot will be sent to Steeple Aston to stand on the designated flight path between Steeple and Middle Aston to monitor the planes flying overhead.

It is also proposed to erect a large white banner on the correct flight path between Steeple and Middle Aston to act as a further visual aid to pilots. While to the outsider 1310 that may seem somewhat quaint, any measure which can help to reduce the noise impact on people living nearby is obviously to be welcomed and is worth trying.

It will be in everyone's interest if Squadron Leader Rice can have regular meetings with representatives of local communities to take forward any sensible suggestions to help ameliorate noise levels and also, if possible, to establish much quicker and more effective lines of communication and information to local vilages about what is happening, about to happen and has happened, at the base.

The recent F111 incidents were an example of when, for most people, the only immediate information available was received in dribs and drabs on the radio and in the press. By definition, much of it was hearsay and second hand and led to speculation and rumour.

It must be possible to establish an effective network to disseminate information regularly and, when necessary, speedily through local communities from the base. I am sure that local people would willingly co-operate with such a move if it meant that they could be given more speedily the information that they as local people need about these matters.

I hope that progress with Squadron Leader Rice and Colonel Downer has been positive, but there are one or two areas in which progress has not been as positive. The first relates to compensation for Ardley. Ardley is a comparatively small village to the east of the base and has been perhaps one of the worst affected villages. It has a sizeable number of houses within the 83 dbn contour. The Ministry of Defence has offered to purchase those houses at market values. I understand that once purchased they will be relet to American service personnel.

Many people in Ardley feel that it is unfair and unjust that, whereas a house on one side of the road may fall within the 83 dbn contour and thus be available for purchase, a house which is literally on the other side of the side of the road and which happens to be outside the 83 dbn contour, but by definition must be within a very high noise contour, is not eligible for purchase. It would be fairer and more just if every householder in the immediate parish of Ardley could have the opportunity of his or her property being sold to the Ministry of Defence at market value because otherwise my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will encounter some hard cases and people who feel, rightly, that they have not been treated fairly or justly.

The people of Ardley have not brought this upon themselves. The village has existed for a long time. The noise levels are not of the people's making, but inevitably if, as I suspect will happen, a sizeable number of people sell their houses because of the intolerable noise levels, the nature and character of the village will change considerably. The village shop, garage and church are all within the 83 dbn contour. It will be much more sensible if all home owners in the village were given the opportunity of selling their property. It could then be rightly and fairly said that anyone who purchased that property thereafter and moved to the village did so with full knowledge and understanding of the nuisance involved.

My hon. Friend will doubtless say that that would create a precedent. In effect, the decision by the Ministry of Defence to offer compensation along the lines that are similar to those in the Land Compensation Act 1973 is itself a precedent in many ways. If the Ministry of Defence feels unable to offer to purchase the homes itself, I 1311 understand that the United States Air Force is short of accommodation. The housing estate that it has been using in Bicester is shortly no longer to be available to it. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider having discussions with the United States Air Force to see whether it would be prepared to purchase those houses from its budget.

Many people whose homes fall within the 83 dbn contour have lived in Ardley for many years and have children attending the local schools. They are finding the present noise levels intolerable and wish to move, but they regard the period of one year in which they have to make the decision to move as a tight time frame. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider extending that period. Indeed, there are precedents for that, such as what happened in Yeovilton. Such an extension would ensure that people did not feel that their only option was to be rushed out of their homes.

Everyone in Ardley has been put in an intolerable position. It is difficult for those of us not in that position to conceive of it. People in Ardley, both individually and as a community are having to contend with a whole host of difficulties about their future. I hope that my hon. Friend will give consideration—I am sure that he will—to whether the Ministry of Defence could extend the compensation provisions so that everyone in Ardley could be included.

There is then the question of compensation for what in the law of nuisance is described as the loss of quiet enjoyment of one's property. For those who live, for example, in rented accommodation—council tenants and others—the compensation arrangements recently announced by my hon. Friend will be of no real benefit. I should have thought that it would be sensible for those living within the 75 plus dbn contour to be offered a straightforward one-off lump sum payment as compensation for what, in effect, is the loss of the quiet enjoyment of their properties. In due time, of course, if those houses are sold or people move, the people coming new into the area will know the position, but the people who are living there at present have no means of knowing that what had hitherto been tolerable levels of noise would become intolerable. In those circumstances, it would be considered much more fair and just if those people were to receive a single lump sum compensation payment for what has materially and seriously affected the quality of life that they are able to enjoy.

There are continuing concerns about Dr. Radcliffe's school, which is a Church of England school at Steeple Aston. It has a roll of approximately 150 pupils aged 5 to 11 years. It is now almost immediately under the new flight path to the west. My hon. Friend has visited the school and knows its exact location.

I have seen a letter of 24 May, written by Mr. Topps of the Ministry of Defence Land Agents to Mrs. Simmons, who is chairman of the school's governors. I am sure that my hon. Friend has seen that letter, so, as time is short, I do not intend to go through it in great detail. I do not believe that Mr. Topps's letter is a fair summary of the history of the matter. When it became apparent that the noise levels over Steeple Aston were becoming intolerable, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) fairly came to Steeple Aston. He visited Dr. Radcliffe's school and sought Treasury permission to offer payment for that school to have proper noise insulation. That, obviously, was a sensible and straightforward approach to the matter, and the approach that anyone would have 1312 hoped would be taken. The school governors and the parents understood that, and supported the fact that there should be a full technical survey to see whether it would be possible to insulate the school.

In due course that survey was completed and there was a meeting at Dr. Radcliffe's school, which a large number of people attended, because there was much interest in the school. As it is a Church of England school, there were representatives from the diocesan education authority. there were also representatives from Oxfordshire county council, as the local education authority, the trustees of the Dr. Radcliffe trust, governors and others who were concerned, including representatives of the Ministry of Defence and the PSA and the technical advisers who had carried out the technical survey.

It was only at that time that the local education authority and others had the opportunity to consider the implications of the technical survey. I am bound to say that the general consensus was that the proposals were costly and that there was no guarantee that such expense, once incurred, would materially improve the school's environment. What is more, it became apparent in the intervening period that both teachers and parents had become increasingly apprehensive about the number of planes that were flying immediately above the school, and, therefore, that was another factor that had to be taken into consideration.

Following that meeting, the school governors unanimously resolved that, rather than spending large sums of public money on seeking an expensive system of noise insulation, which would probably not solve the problem, they would much prefer that the school be moved. That approach is now supported by Oxfordshire county council as the local education authority. From Mr. Topps's letter. I understand that the Ministry is not prepared to support such an approach.

I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect upon the matter. By definition, any change to the school will need the endorsement of the local education authority and, doubtless, of the Department of Education and Science. I hope also that my hon. Friend will consider the Dr. Radcliffe school and the other issues, and ensure that his officials consult officials in the Department of Education and Science on the best way forward. I understand my hon. Friend's concern that the technical survey has already incurred a sum of money, but there will be greater concern if thousands of pounds are spent on insulating the school only for a modest improvement. Parents and staff would still be worried about children being taught in that environment.

To a greater or lesser degree, everyone in north Oxfordshire supports the fundamental principle that my hon. Friend and I support, that the first duty of the realm is the defence of the realm. Over the years, there has been full appreciation of the contribution that RAF Upper Heyford has played and continues to play in the nation's defence. As I have made clear on previous occasions, that public good must be balanced against the numerous collective private interests of the thousands of people who live around the base. One of the Government's functions is to seek to reconcile the public good and private interests as best as possible.

The change in the flight path has led to a substantial increase in aircraft noise. What was once tolerable has now become intolerable for many people. There is said to be no relief from the noise. Frustration has increased because of 1313 recent incidents. For instance, on 9 May, shortly after take-off, an F111 developed engine problems and jettisoned fuel, which then ignited, causing the plane to have the appearance of a fireball when it landed. On 19 May, part of a wing flap fell off an F111 during a flight close to Banbury.

Such frustrations and concerns are causing increasingly large numbers of people in north Oxfordshire to question the reason for having a major military airfield in one of the fastest growing areas in the United Kingdom. Over the past year, local people have been patient. I trust that my hon. Friend will today be able to meet some of their specific and immediate concerns, and ensure that everyone considers that he is being treated fairly and justly and that every step is being taken to ensure that they can lead their lives with as little inconvenience from the base as is humanly possible in the circumstances.

I appreciate that I have taken more time than is customary in an Adjournment debate, and I apologise for that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that several matters of concern should have been outlined. In many instances, I have been able to outline them only briefly and in headline form. If my hon. Friend feels that I have not accorded him sufficient time to respond fully to my constituents' concerns, I hope that he will take time to reflect and to write to me in due course or that we will have further meetings. I thank my hon. Friend and his officials for their courtesy in recent weeks and months. My hon. Friend found this problem on his desk when he moved to his present position. I hope that he will continue to make efforts to find solutions to these difficult problems.