HL Deb 13 July 1976 vol 373 cc285-301

8.49 p.m.

Lord HENLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take in view of the recommendations of the Joint Committee of both Houses on the Civil Aviation (Gatwick) (Control of Land by Directions) Order 1975 which on 21st January 1976 considered the noise caused by jet aircraft using Gatwick Airport to have rendered the neighbouring land virtually uninhabitable. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in January of this year a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament came to the conclusion that a house and land under the flight path funnel of Gatwick Airport was virtually uninhabitable. "Virtually uninhabitable" were the words they used, and they are very strong words. They unanimously recommended that the Secretary of State for Trade should, in justice, either purchase the property or give adequate compensation, and those are very firm recommendations. The land in question is a small farm, occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Walter Greenfield and their family, which lies on Russ Hill and is known as Westlands Farm.

If Her Majesty's Government are going to ignore so strong a recommendation by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, I think we need to know the reason why. So far as I know, between 1972 and 1976 the Government did not challenge the McConnel report, produced by A. J. McConnel and Associates, which was a survey over seven days and seven nights of the noise over Gatwick. Counsel for Mr. Walter Greenfield at the Select Committee's inquiry relied very much upon the McConnel Report for the evidence that was given, but, so far as I know, counsel for Her Majesty's Government did not challenge it either during the four years in which the Government had the report before them or at the inquiry.

During those four years, Mr. Greenfield sought redress. He was offered a grant for insulation, but in a house of this nature, which is a very old one, it was not worth having, because the cost was probably greater than the value of the house and the land, so that was really a non-starter. He also sought to effect a sale, but every time he came within measurable distance of achieving that, the purchasers' solicitors told them to lay off, because the property was unsaleable and was quite unsuitable either for a mortgage or as security for a loan.

It was not until 1975 when a felling order was made—that is to say, an order by the Secretary of State to fell certain trees on Mr. Greenfield's property—that it became possible for Mr. Greenfield to use that as an opportunity to bring his plight before Parliament. The trees in question were in the line of flight, and that gives some indication of how low aeroplanes fly over this property. I understand that the property lies some 200 feet above the runway, so that by the time aircraft are airborne they are so near Mr. Greenfield's property that it was necessary to fell those trees.

As I said, Mr. Greenfield used the felling order as an opportunity to bring the matter before the Select Committee, and he did that by way of a Petition against the order. The order was confirmed, and rightly so, because it would have been dangerous if those trees had not been felled. But in confirming it the Joint Select Committee made the recommendation which I have already mentioned; namely, that, in justice, the Secretary of State ought either to purchase or to offer adequate compensation. As we have seen, no steps have been taken by the Minister to implement that recommendation. When the Government were pressed by the Member of Parliament for the area, by means of a Parliamentary Question, the Answer given was that it raised very difficult questions. Of course, it raises very difficult questions, as I am very well aware, but it seems to me that seven months is a long time to sort out some of them.

The Secretary of State paid an unannounced visit and listened for part of a day to the noise problem, but it so happened that he came on a day when the aircraft were taking off in a different direction. The Minister below the Secretary of State ordered a one-day inquiry which was inadequate, because the monitoring took place somewhere other than Westlands Farm. Nevertheless, the Minister said—and these are his words— This is so much at variance from the advice tendered to you "; that is to say, the advice tendered to Mr. Greenfield by, first, McConnel in 1972 and, secondly, his own examination which covered three days earlier this year, and which was based upon a very much more elaborate investigation than that undertaken by the Minister.

I do not know whether the Minister wants to challenge the noise findings now, but if he does I think that his challenge ought to be based not upon what appears to me—and I may have been misadvised—to have been a rather inadequate monitoring, but upon the kind of monitoring which McConnel did in 1972 over seven days and seven nights, or which Mr. Greenfield's advisors did during the three-day investigation this summer. I am also not sure whether the Minister will challenge the opinion of the Select Committee, which was based upon advice given in the McConnel Report and that given after the three-day examination this summer, which was to the effect that the position was very much worse than at the time of the McConnel investigation.

Since that Select Committee in January, things have got very much worse. First, I understand that Mr. Greenfield can get no insurance cover for public liability or for third party insurance, and such domestic cover as he is offered is so restricted as to be virtually no insurance at all. Next, the regional safety inspector of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, has recommended in writing that Mr. Greenfield should not employ anyone on the holding.

The noble Lord will no doubt have a copy of that letter, which is dated 21st May this year. I hope he will not seek to suggest to me that the regional safety inspector who wrote in such terms to Mr. Greenfield was misadvised. I also hope he will not tell me that the agents for Lloyds' underwriters were misadvised in informing him that they could not offer him proper third party or public liability insurance, because I understand that arising out of that refusal of Lloyds' to offer proper cover, and out of the regional safety inspector's recommendation that he should not employ anybody, the Mole Valley District Council contemplated refusing to collect refuse, on the grounds that because Mr. Greenfield was improperly insured, and because the area was considered by the regional safety inspector to be unfit for the employment of anybody, it would be unsuitable for their men to go in to collect refuse.

I understand that that has not, in fact, happened. That suggestion, which was in the minds of the Mole Valley District Council, was withdrawn on the advice of the Department of Trade, and no doubt rightly so. They would have been quite improper to allow the district council to go forward with the suggestion that refuse from one of their ratepayers should not be collected, on the grounds that he could not properly insure his workpeople—or, indeed, by extension, their own. I hope the Minister is not going to deny this.

Is the Minister also going to suggest that he has no power to purchase? I believe that he is wrong. In a letter to the Member for Dorking the Minister said that there would be no power to purchase on the grounds of disturbance from aircraft noise and, furthermore, that he had no power because the British Airports Authority had no use for the farm. I am advised—and I can quote chapter and verse if the noble Lord so wishes—that the Minister has those powers and that they derive from Section 23(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1949. I do not think that I need to go into the arguments but I have them before me if the noble Lord wishes to hear them.

With regard to purchase, there are no problems as to valuation. It is not a case which is particularly difficult for any district valuer. The property could be valued now, at the same time taking into account what the position would be if there were no noise. I prefer the idea of purchase because compensation, which is the other recommendation of the Select Committee which suggested either that the property should be purchased or that there should be adequate compensation, raises difficult problems. Therefore, I suggest that compensation is better left alone and that purchase is a more sensible course for the Government to take.

If the Government are going to take neither the course of purchase, which I believe would be the right one, nor the course of compensation, which raises very difficult issues, what is contemplated? I hope that I am not going to be fobbed off with the suggestion that stricter control of airports is the answer. I do not believe that this is any use. Indeed, the Minister's own arguments in cognate circumstances point out that differing weather conditions and different pilot skills all add up to a state of affairs in which it is virtually impossible to get anybody to conform to regulations.

I cannot help feeling that the Secretary of State has been pretty shabby over all this. He ignores the very firm recommendations of the Select Committee. I think there are suggestions that the Department of Trade would like to upset the findings of the Select Committee. It appears to me that the Secretary of State is seeking to challenge McConnel. There was no attempt to challenge McConnel between 1972 and 1976, nor was there any attempt to challenge the McConnel Report at the hearing in January before the Select Committee.

The words used by the Select Committee are very strong. I pointed out to your Lordships that the words used by the Select Committee were that the property was virtually uninhabitable, but the words used by McConnel were that it was unfit for human habitation. I hope that tonight the noble Lord will not seek to suggest that McConnel was talking nonsense. I hope that there will be no attempt to suggest that the Secretary of State does not have the powers of purchase which I believe that he undoubtedly has. I hope also that I shall not hear the suggestion made that both Lloyds' and the regional inspector do not know their business.

When Mr. Greenfield bought the property in 1966 he was prepared to accept a certain amount of discomfort. Since then, without a public inquiry and without any need for planning permission, Gatwick has been enlarged to a point which has made life intolerable below its runway. This is happening on other airfields. As your Lordships will know, once you have obtained the user of an airport you do not need planning permission, nor do you need the machinery of a public inquiry. This kind of thing is going to happen increasingly. Already it has happened at Heathrow; you mention the airport and they have done it. You will have a state of affairs where people like Mr. Greenfield, who were prepared to put up with the old piston engines and with what many of us put up with, anyway—that is, a good deal more noise than we like—are going to be forced to accept a quite intolerable degree of noise.

If people are to be subjected to this kind of torment, if you like in the public interest, then the public, somehow or another, must give redress to the people who suffer it. If a precedent is created—well, so be it; it is right that it should be created and that the people who suffer thus in the public interest are compensated for it.

I have no right of reply to an Unstarred Question. I can only hear what the noble Lord is going to say. I hope that I have anticipated to some extent not necessarily the arguments that he will use but the arguments which have already been used in some measure by the Department of Trade. As I say, those arguments seem to me to be sometimes shabby and sometimes unsound, and I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say. I hope that the noble Lord will admit that Mr. Greenfield has been grievously damnified and that when people are so damnified in the public interest, something must be done about it.

9.8 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, the Unstarred Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, draws our attention to one particular case of acute environmental damage and personal injury at the end of the runway of one of the four airports currently serving London. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has concentrated his remarks to the Minister tonight on the circumstances of that single case and we shall want to hear how his very proper inquiries on behalf of Mr. Greenfield are answered by the Minister. I hope they will be answered with precision and without equivocation. This is what we want because it is clear that an individual citizen has suffered, and is still suffering, both an injustice and an injury. A Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament has pronounced strongly in his favour. So far the Secretary of State has done nothing about that recommendation and we have a duty to see that both the injustice and the injury are ended.

But the matter goes wider than that. This question certainly relates to a particular case, but it is a case that is already typical of other cases and in the course of time will become typical of many more cases; many more cases of injurious affection and environmental damage as traffic builds up in these four airports, far beyond the scale for which the original planning permission for Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted provided.

Your Lordships will be aware of the anomalies that the noble Lord has already mentioned. The anomaly in the planning law which allows development of the operational land within the perimeter of an airport to be executed within the general development order; that is, without further planning inquiry, without further public participation and without further planning permission. This can be done regardless of the effect of increased aircraft noise; regardless of the effect of increased traffic congestion on the ground; regardless of increased demand on local housing and regardless of the increased effects on local employment.

It may be argued—and the Minister may say it tonight—that these increases will only he slight, only gradual, have all been anticipated and so on. But I should like your Lordships to recognise that this is not so at all and the figures can be found in the Consultation Document on airport strategy for Great Britain, and for London in particular. What is contemplated there, what is expected, what is being provided for, but not what is being properly planned for in any proper statutory sense, is not just a slight increase but a doubling or even a trebling: a doubling or a trebling of passengers, a doubling or trebling of road and rail traffic congestion, a doubling or trebling of the staff to handle those passengers and that traffic, and more than a doubling or trebling of the populations needing to live within range of the airport and supply the employees to service the aircraft and handle the passengers.

All this is to be done with scant recourse to planning procedures, and therefore without the duty to resort to public inquiries, public participation and planning permission. We consider that this will be a travesty of the democratic procedures on which planning legislation relies. But this seems to be the way in which matters are to be handled. Inevitably there will be—there is already—an inexorable and increasing impact on the environment from the mounting movement of aircraft and passengers at Luton, at Stansted, at Gatwick and at Heathrow.

In these circumstances—and these are the circumstances that prevail at the moment—Parliament must be particularly vigilant to see that the individual citizens suffering injury from this increasingly appalling impact do not have injustice compounded with their injuries and are at least compensated or given other proper redress for their misfortunes. The noble Lord has brought a case which is a test case for the way things are going at the moment and many thousands of citizens living now in the shadow of Heathrow, of Gatwick, of Stansted and of Luton will be waiting with very natural anxiety and a proper concern to hear what the Minister has to say in answer to this important Question.

9.14 p.m.

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has concentrated on the principle: with your Lordships' permission I should like to go back to this particular case and to stress it as a matter of principle. I was a member of the committee which investigated this complaint. That Committee did not consist of young, inexperienced, impressionable innocents. From you Lordships' House there was myself—and no one could call me young or innocent—there was the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and an equally experienced team from the other place.

I must admit I went to this Committee in a mood of interest, and perhaps feeling that I was doing only my duty. But as the day went on, and as one listened to the evidence produced, in every member of the Committee a feeling of indignation arose. Of course, when it came to examining the particular case it was quite evident that in fact the Ministry were right, and in the interests of safety the trees had to be lopped. "All right", we said, "the trees should be lopped; the Ministry's case was correct", and then we went on to the real nub of the affair: the intolerable persecution of Mr. Greenfield and his family.

Mr. Greenfield bought the house in 1966. He paid about £16,000 for it, with 20 acres of land around it. From my knowledge of agricultural purchases, this appeared to me to be a reasonable price for the time. He bought it in the full knowledge that aircraft, both piston-engined and turbo prop took off from there. He investigated the noise and decided he could tolerate it. For business purposes he intended that his son should run a riding school and various other enterprises there. By 1972 the carrying out of any of his business enterprises had become intolerable.

The house and farm stand about 200 feet above the level of the runway. This is rather unusual in that most airfields are situated in flat country so that when you get an aircraft taking off it rises much more quickly than it does above rising ground, and to that extent this is very much an exceptional case. Also it is quite exceptional to have a farm with enterprises of this kind on it. Also the house is of considerable antiquity, and quite definitely was not suitable for noise proofing. But it is a very poor thing if we put people in intolerable circumstances, and say to them, "All right. We will pay you to noise proof; even if you pay enough, so that if you want to live a reasonable life you must stay inside the house ". This is an intolerable thing for society to put on anyone. Of course, if you live in the country you do expect to go out at times. What happened to Mr. Greenfield and his family is perfectly straightforward. The big jets and the increase in holiday traffic really made his life intolerable. All these experienced politicians sat on this Committee, and we were all convinced that this had happened. We were all convinced from our examination of the man himself and from the technical evidence.

If we look at it, it is perfectly simple. From Gatwick during all the summer, tours are taking off for points in the Mediterranean, loaded with happy holiday makers, "filled to the 'gunwhale'", all of them. I do not suggest that the aircraft are bad or anything like that, but they are loaded to full capacity, and off they go. When they are taking off to the West in the face of a West wind, they are bound to go low over Mr. Green-field's house. The noise must be absolutely intolerable with the nose-up conditions. It is very different with Tridents or BAC 111s taking off on a scheduled run. These are aircraft in the holiday season taking off day and night.

I should like to repeat to the Minister once more, for I see him fingering his brief somewhat in disbelief, what the McConnel Report said. As far as I know—and it was not challenged in the Committee when I was there—McConnel and Associates, noise, sound and shock control, have never been challenged as a respectable firm, and I have found no one to do so. Their conclusions are as follows: From the foregoing sections we conclude the following: that the criterion of 110 pndb"— I do not know what that means— for the maximum daytime noise levels from aircraft is greatly exceeded with more than one aircraft in four of all those monitored being in excess of this criterion: that a criterion of 102 pndb for the maximum night-time noise levels from aircraft is greatly exceeded with more than one aircraft in three of all those monitored being in excess; that a farmhouse at Westland Farm lies on a 70 to 80 NNI"— that is, noise and nuisance— contour line greatly in excess of the 50 NNI, the maximum usually accepted as being tolerable. that due to the high intensities measured, as high as 135 pndb, biological damage and brain disorientation effects may be experienced by humans within the proximity of such levels. Our previous researches have shown that some aircraft at various positions in flight can give rise to high intensity infrasonic noise levels, and while research continues to evaluate the effects of high intensity infrasound on humans it may be assumed from known indications that these are harmful. I make no apology for repeating this Report because what it said was confirmed by this Joint Committee of the two Houses in regard to examination of Mr. Greenfield and the other witnesses.

My Lords, aircraft travel is an amazing thing. It is a wonderful convenience to a number of people. I must admit that I left Angus—which is 90 miles North of Edinburgh, in case the Minister does not know—this morning at a quarter past six and I was in this building for a meeting at 10.30. It is an amazing help. But we are doing it, obviously, at the expense of other citizens who do not enjoy it, and either it should be charged to us who use it or to the community as a whole.

If the side effects of so-called technical advances are extremely harmful to some citizens we should do something about it, and when I say "we" I am talking about Parliament. Mr. Greenfield appealed to Parliament, and Parliament, in the form of this Committee, recognised that he had a complaint which was justified against the community. I think it is quite extraordinary that the Ministry of Civil Aviation have had the McConnel Report since 1972 and until recently they have done nothing about it at all; that the Joint Committee of both Houses reported in January and made a definite recommendation and still nothing is done about this citizen who is now suffering further damage and has produced evidence of same. I hope and trust that the Ministry will now make up their minds to do something, and something real.

The first thing they should do—and they can do it next week if they like—is to go down to this farm, wait until the wind is in the right direction (in other words, until aircraft are taking off to the West) and evaluate the sound, both by day and by night, and do it over several days; and, furthermore, ask a representative of Mr. Greenfield to be there and pay for him, which they should do. Let us have a report which everyone will accept. But it must be done when the aircraft are taking off over Westland Farm. If that was done then we would have a real and genuine evaluation of an independent character, although I must say that I totally believe the McConnel Report. I think this will involve us in expense, involve the community in expense, more expense, but it is right and proper that this expense should be borne. What is entirely wrong, my Lords, is to leave the victims of aircraft noise and vibration to pay for it in the deterioration of their homes in value, and in the possible ruination of their health.

9.24 p.m.

Lord ORAM

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and to the noble Lords who have supported him in raising this matter today, and for the way in which they have taken the subject, because we recognise that the recommendations of the Joint Committee have raised matters of very considerable interest and of difficulty, both legal and economic.

The Government have had this matter under active consideration since the Joint Committee reported, but there have been complications—there is no doubt about that—and because of these complications the Government have only just been able to make known their views on the recommendations. As some of the people directly concerned may not yet have received this information the House will understand that I am reluctant to be the first to give the news in response to this Question. It is better that those directly concerned should hear direct from the Minister involved. But I shall endeavour, in response to the points made here today, to explain the matters which the Government have had to take account of in considering the Joint Committee's recommendations.

Let me say at the outset that the Government are deeply sympathetic to Mr. Greenfield's plight—I hope there is no doubt about that—and also the plight of many others who live uncomfortably close to major airports. Ministers concerned make visits to areas in the vicinity of airports to assess the problem for themselves, and at Gatwick and Heathrow the Department of Trade operate a variety of noise abatement measures designed to minimise the problem to the greatest practicable extent. However, we do not pretend that these measures will do other than partially alleviate the problem for people in Mr. Greenfield's position. The real long-term answer will come only as the new, quieter aircraft now in service replace the existing generation of older, noisier jets on a substantial scale. This, in the Government's view, is the most promising approach—to reduce the noise of aircraft at source. The Government are, therefore, well aware of the general problem caused to people living near airports, but the difficulty is what can be done about it without crippling the civil aviation industry which is of such benefit to the country both economically and socially in other respects? In particular, what factors have to be taken account of in considering the Joint Committee's recommendations?

The first question to consider is whether Mr. Greenfield's case is "very exceptional" or "a special case" as the Joint Committee thought. In the recommendations of the Committee reference is made "that readings of 70 to 80 NNI"—that is, noise and number index—" have been recorded at Mr. Greenfield's property". The noise and number index method of assessing noise disturbance is based on a formula derived from a social survey carried out at Heathrow in 1961. It takes account of the average noise levels of aircraft and the number of aircraft movements at a given point over the period mid-June to mid-September. Measurements taken over a lesser period would not give a proper NNI reading. For example, if noise levels during any shorter period were higher than the average for the three-months period the NNI reading would be higher; conversely, if noise levels were lower in that short period then the NNI reading would be lower. It is my understanding that the NNI levels quoted in the Committee report were not based on the three-month period and, consequently, were not proper NNI readings. I repeat that this is relevant to the Committee's findings because they go on to compare the quoted 70 to 80 readings with: When 55 NNI is officially considered to be a very high level of noise. It is a fact, according to official estimates, that Mr. Greenfield's property lies just about on the 55 NNI contour line. Because it is agreed that this is an area of serious disturbance, the British Airports Authority operate a noise insulation grants scheme at Gatwick to give some relief for people living in the area. Unfortunately—and Lord Henley mentioned this—the construction of Mr. Greenfield's property is such that I understand he cannot take advantage of this scheme. I think it also relevant to point out that, on official estimates, there are about 400 dwellings around Gatwick situated in areas of equal or worse disturbance compared with Westlands Farm. At Heathrow there are as many as 32,000 dwellings in the same position and there are numbers at other airports in the country. On this evidence, it is difficult to support the Committee's contention that Mr. Greenfield's position is very exceptional. If something were done for Mr. Greenfield, it would be difficult to deny others equal rights. In fact, claims have already been laid on behalf of other Gatwick residents following the Joint Committee recommendations.

In their recommendations the Committee mention that Westlands Farm is on rising ground, with the implication that this would affect the noise levels experienced. Naturally, the nearer one is to an aircraft the louder it sounds, but I am advised that the few hundred feet Westlands Farm is above the airport ground level would make no significant difference to the noise level experienced. Certainly it would not account for the very high noise levels alleged to have been made in correspondence with the Department of Trade. All this has been explained to Mr. Greenfield and an offer made to co-operate with him in having measurements taken on his land so that at least these facts can be ascertained. Official measurements taken at points near Westlands Farm show a marked divergence from those quoted by Mr. Greenfield. Again, in the Committee's recommendations, mention is made that jet aircraft pass near to Westlands Farm. If an aircraft is on course it should not pass much less than half a mile away from Mr. Greenfield's house, and official observations confirm that most aircraft are that distance away. Here again, an offer has been made to have joint observations carried out.

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

My Lords, can the noble Lord say when that offer was made?

Lord Oram

No, my Lords, but I know that an official from the Department has recently seen Mr. Greenfield and has made a number of such offers to him.

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

The Committee reported in January and the McConnel Report was in 1972, my Lords. Is it only within the last month that this offer was made?

Lord ORAM

I think so, my Lords; it is a recent offer. Nevertheless, it is accepted that an aircraft might occasionally stray off course and the noise levels at Westlands Farm would consequently be increased. To help obviate this, additional navigational guidance equipment is being installed at Gatwick later this year which should help aircraft maintain course more accurately. I hope that this will be of help to Mr. Greenfield and others in the area. I hope I have not sounded too unsympathetic so far; I have tried to illustrate the technical and practical difficulties of substantiating that Mr. Greenfield's case is very exceptional. I would not, however, wish to deny that he suffers considerable disturbance from aircraft noise and I do not dispute most of the points that have been made by noble Lords.

If I turn now to the legal aspects of the case, these revolve round the extent to which existing powers would enable the Secretary of State to act in response to the Committee's suggestion to "either purchase Mr. Greenfield's property or give adequate compensation". This is matter on which legal advice has been taken and the Secretary of State is communicating with those concerned on this point in particular. For the reasons stated earlier, I think it unfair to reveal what he says but I can mention some general points of principle in relation to law on compensation against noise nuisance.

Under the Land Compensation Act 1973, compensation is payable for loss of value of property on account of increased disturbance caused by new works; increased disturbance from the more intensive use of existing works is not admissible for this purpose. Here I might mention in passing that Mr. Greenfield moved into the area in 1966, when Gatwick was a well-established airport and plans were well advanced to develop it further. It should have been evident, therefore, that the increased activity expected would lead to more disturbance. This does illustrate the difficulty of deciding where to draw a line in considering compensation matters.

During the passage of the Land Compensation Bill, consideration was given to the possibility of extending the powers to cover increased disturbance from existing works, but it was thought that the financial implications of such an open-ended commitment were too extensive to contemplate. Noble Lords will appreciate that although we are today considering the case of one dwelling at one airport, the principle would have to apply to all dwellings around all airports and would not be confined to aircraft noise only. The ramifications in the road traffic field would be immense. The present time of financial stringency is not a period during which a Government could readily choose to embark upon such a commitment. However, I can assure the House that the Government are giving full and sympathetic consideration to the issues arising from this case as they raise such important social, legal and economic issues.

I am afraid that it is premature for me to say anything more explicit than this; but I can sum up for the House the steps already being taken following the Committee report. The Department of Trade has offered to co-operate with Mr. Greenfield in noise measuring and track-keeping studies to establish the agreed facts in the case. New navigational guidance equipment is being installed which should help in ensuring that aircraft do not overfly Westlands Farm. Finally, the Department will continue with the noise abatement measures already in operation at Gatwick and will seek new initiatives whenever practicable so as to improve the living conditions not only of Mr. Greenfield but of all people living near the airport.

Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE

My Lords, before the Minister sits down can I ask him to clarify a point? As I understand it, he said that Mr. Greenfield had bought Westlands Farm in 1966 when Gatwick was already an established airport and plans were well advanced for its expansion. Do I infer from that that the Government consider that the ordinary citizen should be aware of all the technical advances planned for airports before he purchases any property near them, and that he has no right of appeal if his life becomes intolerable because of these advances and because of changes in technique from piston to jet engines?

Lord ORAM

Obviously no one can expect lay citizens to know all those points, but in purchasing any property surely one takes common sense attitudes to these matters. I suggest that although 1966 was perhaps a point before the remarkable development of jet aircraft had taken place, there were sufficient indications for caution at any rate to have been exercised.