PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Gatwick Airspace Modernisation Review - 18 December 2024 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

I will call John Milne to move the motion, and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in 30-minute debates. It is not normal for other Members to make a speech unless they have the permission of the Member in charge and the Minister, but they can intervene. I call John Milne.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential impact of the Gatwick airspace modernisation review on local communities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. My constituency of Horsham lies to the west and south of Gatwick airport. I have brought today’s debate in order to represent growing concerns from residents regarding the airspace modernisation process around Gatwick, which is part of the future airspace strategy implementation south, known as FASI-S.

Before I start, I would like to make it clear that I wholly support the modernisation process in principle. It is a vital step if we are to improve the efficiency of civil aviation, cut flight times and reduce carbon emissions. What I do question, however, is how we will get there. The process as it stands involves a significant conflict of interest. I would also like to emphasise that the airspace modernisation process is entirely separate from the second runway application at Gatwick, although it is going on at the same time and naturally gets confused in the public mind. The airspace modernisation process will go ahead whether or not Gatwick obtains permission to expand and is in fact part of a national process also being conducted at 19 other airports across the UK.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I hope I can help him and the Minister as well. For all airport modernisation reviews, the issue of sound is always of extreme importance. For example, both major airports in Northern Ireland, Belfast International and Belfast City, have residential areas nearby. Provisions must be in place to tackle excessive noise at certain times. So does the hon. Member agree that any airspace modernisation review must make the matter of noise a top priority to ensure that local communities are not negatively impacted by airspace expansion?

Indeed, as I will come on to, noise is the primary issue at stake here. Gatwick Airport Ltd, referred to as GAL, is a private company. As the operator at Gatwick, it has been tasked with masterminding the airspace review process. It is subject to oversight from a public body, the Civil Aviation Authority. Similarly, Heathrow and other airports across the country are carrying out their own strategy implementation consultation processes for their own areas. The assumption is that each airport knows its own patch better than anyone else, so they are the best qualified to do the job. However, in the case of Gatwick, serious concerns have been raised. Now that we have reached stage three, which is the public consultation phase, many of my constituents and parish councils are concerned. They are worried about the impacts the proposals will have on public health, the objectivity of the process itself and whether the three shortlisted choices actually represent any kind of choice at all.

The proposed changes all involve using a new, previously not overflown flight path. Currently, planes taking off to the west climb for about 6k out before turning south to the coast. But the new route makes a much earlier turn south at about 2k out. The net effect of this change is to separate the western and southern route paths much earlier than currently, which enables a reduction in the interval between flights from two minutes down to 60 seconds. That in turn would enable the airport operator to build significantly more take-off slots into their schedules. The value of that increase in capacity is enormous, potentially hundreds of millions of pounds over the long term.

Why should the change in flight path matter so much to my constituents? Because the sharper turns mean that thousands of flights a year will henceforth directly overfly the villages of Rusper, Warnham and Slinfold at a relatively low height, radically increasing noise pollution, loss of sleep and other negatives.

As the Member for Mid Sussex, I have been concerned for some time about potential expansion at Gatwick airport, in particular bringing the emergency runway into commercial use. Does my hon. Friend agree that should the decision be approved, the problems he outlines will only be exacerbated?

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Indeed, there is a suspicion that part of the motive behind this is to enable an expansion, which has not been permitted yet.

In this new design, flights would be concentrated over a much narrower band of countryside. The introduction of satellite-based navigation, which is another part of the modernisation process, also has the effect of pushing flights along the same narrow route. GAL started out its review with hundreds of possible designs, but for the public consultation it has narrowed it down to just three. All three make that sharp turn to the south at 2k out. All three add millions to GAL’s potential income. All three create massive noise pollution for Rusper, Warnham and Slinfold. They are not three different options but one and the same.

Is it credible that by fluke all three have exactly the same financial benefit to GAL? It is no wonder that many residents have come to suspect that profit and share price is being put before people’s interests. The absence of an independent member in the design process leaves the outcome open to a perception of bias, at the very least. Perhaps the CAA has recognised this risk, because it proposes to set up a new UK-wide airspace change service that would serve to remedy the problem of

“scarce expertise in the industry”.

The hon. Member is making a very powerful point, and completely correctly. This is something that has been going on for many years. We have been speaking about the Noise Management Board at Gatwick for a very long time. It has completely failed to be anything other than a talking shop in order to placate Bo Redeborn’s complaints at the last review. What we are actually dealing with here is a snake’s wedding above our airspace. It is particularly bad over southern England, but the truth is that it extends all the way to Manchester. This is something I have been fighting for a number of years, so I certainly do not blame the current Minister.

Until the Civil Aviation Authority, NATS and the Department for Transport are willing to address this, we are simply not going to be able to progress. Is it not essential that we look at this in a proper review of the whole of the airspace across southern England and not just exert greater pressure on communities like Cowden in my constituency and no doubt others in the constituency of the hon. Member for Horsham? All we are doing is building a motorway in the sky above people’s homes but without the same protections people would get if a real motorway were to be built alongside them. There will be no compensation, planning or oversight. Is this not the real problem we are facing?

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I am aware that he has been fighting this cause for a very long time. I certainly agree with his comments and the need for a truly national process on this.

The problem is identified by the CAA as a

“scarce expertise in the industry…leading to inconsistent standards and variable quality”

in airport change process submissions. Unfortunately, the Gatwick review will be completed before this new body is even established. Could we be overestimating the negative impacts of this new route? Are residents exaggerating the damage it might do to their wellbeing? We can confidently say that it is no exaggeration, because the same route has already been experimented with before. Back in 2014 a trial was run called ADNID, following more or less the same line. The impact was immediately disastrous, causing a storm of complaints—so much so that the CEO at the time said that the trial route would never be used again. Yet here we are, 10 years later, and ADNID mark II has arrived.

Although Gatwick claims that these proposals would remove traffic from the existing pathway population swathe, not a single population centre would actually benefit from the change. For the first time, the options being presented to the public consultation bring in thousands of residents who were not previously overflown, contradicting GAL’s own policy of deconfliction. The forceful objections raised in 2014 are being ignored.

Gatwick’s route selection cannot be justified on environmental grounds either. Airspace modernisation is designed to reduce carbon emissions from air travel through more efficient flying. Although that may be achieved as a whole in the FASI-S project, the reduction in emissions is largely achieved by the changes made above 7,000 feet. The emissions and their impact under 7,000 feet are simply not being analysed and nor are the potential harms, which are not even mentioned in stage two of GAL’s FASI-S consultation.

The consultation process as a whole lacks transparency. There are many questions that I believe the public need answers to. No defined methodology for shortlisting flightpath options has been put forward for public consultation. Why is GAL allowed to pick and choose proposed flightpaths without independent review or scrutiny? As stated, the options show little or no variation. It is not three choices—

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Indeed, part of the problem is that this process is in isolation from 100 other issues; infrastructure is very much one of them, because, as he says, it is already sadly lacking.

As I was saying, the options show little to no variation from each other. It is not three choices; it is one choice repeated three times. Without sight of a genuine alternative that builds on the structure already in place—using routes that already bear traffic—how can the public understand the trade-offs of different pathways? It is worth noting that Heathrow has three clearly varying pathways, which differ in direction and geometric shape from each other, for the public to consider.

If the Gatwick consultation is sound, why has the CAA launched a separate consultation about setting up a national body for the review? That implies that the current model of individual airports designing individual strategies is not working. Is the current governing policy from the CAA, which is known as CAP1616, up to date? Does it consider modernisation of satellite technology and the impact that technology is having on flight concentration? If not, the modernisation of Gatwick could have serious environmental and health consequences for communities such as mine in Horsham.

Why does GAL seem to be rushing for this consultation to be implemented in 2027 when full technical technological roll-out cannot be achieved by 2030 at the earliest, or by 2035 according to other estimates? Why have alternative routes been dismissed on the basis that they conflicted, due to inter-airport conflict, despite there being a pre-agreed process to deal with that by using the Airspace Change Organising Group at a later date? That is not a basis on which to dismiss alternative options.

Airport modernisation is a nationally important ambition: I certainly do not dispute that. Opportunities to make large-scale, comprehensive changes to the entire national network come only once in a lifetime. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that we carry out the process using the most up-to-date guiding principles, with high levels of scrutiny and consultations that provide residents with a real choice. Without doing so, how will we obtain an outcome that is balanced and fair to both airports and communities?

Retaining the southerly route would make negligible difference to carbon emissions or efficiency, but the benefits to residents would be enormous. Public wellbeing is supposed to be a key part of this process, but it seems that we are sacrificing those three villages for no good reason. I therefore ask that the process be reconsidered such that all the communities around Gatwick and the other 19 airports can be presented with a credible and rational set of alternatives. That process must account for the findings of the recently published “Fair and Equitable Distribution Interim Report”, which was financed by the CAA specifically for that purpose. If we carry on as we are and take no action, we risk that important review being vulnerable to unwanted outcomes and a conflict of interest. I urge the Minister to consider the process again and ensure an outcome that will be accepted as legitimate by the public as a whole.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on securing this timely and important debate.

The UK’s airspace is some of the most complex in the world, yet there has been little change to its overall structure since the 1950s. If a pilot from that time came back to the future in a TARDIS, he would be flying the same pathways as he did in the 1950s. The system was designed closer to the time Yuri Gagarin was in space than to today.

Modernising our airspace can deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys. Airspace modernisation will use new technologies to create direct routes and faster climbs, and will reduce the need for holding stacks. It will mean that the aviation industry can grow safely and that customers will experience more reliable services, which are particularly needed at Gatwick. Importantly, there will be opportunities to reduce noise and carbon emissions.

In my constituency of Tunbridge Wells there is only one noise monitor, in the village of Rusthall. Although we are all in favour of airspace modernisation—the Minister makes some great points about it—how can we know that it will not merely move the noise problem around, or even make it worse? Will the Government commit to expanding the number of noise monitors in affected communities, such as mine in Tunbridge Wells, before they implement the proposal?

I gently remind the hon. Member that I grew up under the flight path at Manchester airport, so I remember the BAC One-Elevens, the Tridents and the Concordes. I even saw the space shuttle do a low pass on a jumbo jet. Through modern technology, noise envelopes are reducing considerably.

The hon. Member for Horsham talked about carbon; who knew that if we actually flew our planes in straight lines, we would reduce the carbon emissions from our aviation sector by up to about 10%? That would benefit not just every community but the planet too.

The first step in modernising Gatwick’s airspace affects routes heading south to the airport, as the hon. Member for Horsham said, which have minimal interactions with other airports. To achieve those changes, Gatwick is following the Civil Aviation Authority’s CAP 1616 process, as he mentioned. The process was revised earlier this year to make it fairer and more transparent and to provide an opportunity for comprehensive engagement with local communities and stakeholders who may be affected by airspace changes. It is worth pointing out that that was a key manifesto commitment of ours at the general election. That was right because, given the implications of airspace changes for local communities and the environment, it is necessary that they are subject to robust and transparent procedures.

One of the most complex and pressing aspects of airspace modernisation is the need to redesign the outdated flightpaths into and from our airports, such as those at Gatwick. Gatwick airport participates in a fundamental component of the Department’s airspace modernisation programme: the future airspace strategy implementation programme. FASI is a UK-wide upgrade of terminal airspace, involving 20 airports working in collaboration with the Airspace Change Organising Group and NATS to co-ordinate a more efficient airspace system.

I appreciate the tone with which the Minister is approaching this issue, which he knows has been a matter of great frustration for the past few years that I have been in Parliament. The key to the FASI programme is surely making the efficiency work. I will not comment on the Minister’s understanding of aerodynamics, given his comment about the TARDIS flying, which is a slightly different question—

It is the space-time continuum.

Exactly—it is not quite aerodynamics, and not exactly a flight route.

But this debate does involve flight routes, and there is extra pressure on communities. The Department’s policy, certainly until now—the Minister may have changed it—was to reduce the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise. Yet going from a flight every 20 minutes to a flight every 100 seconds will apply enormous pressure in a community like Cowden, right next to where I live in west Kent. That is clearly a major change.

I appreciate that noise management has changed in the years since the Minister was growing up near Manchester airport, and I appreciate his points about efficiency—we all welcome efficiency in aircraft routes and, I hope, the greater profit for aircraft users and the resultant cheaper tickets—but will he also recognise that that efficiency needs to be shared with compensation on the ground? If we were to build a motorway next to somebody’s house, we would compensate them, or it would at least require various permissions. This should be no different. It is a motorway in the air.

Gatwick did pass stage 2 of the CAA’s CAP 1616 process. That is a transparent process, and it is fully consulted on at stage 3. The right hon. Member mentions noise in particular, which I know is a sensitive issue. I understand how the changes to flight paths as part of the airspace modernisation process can also change how noise is distributed. As ever, we need to strike a fair balance between the impact of aviation on the local environment and communities, and the economic benefits that Gatwick brings to its local community, as well as its national importance. With airspace modernisation and performance-enhancing beacons, we can be more flexible.

As Gatwick has more than 50,000 movements a year, it is obliged under the environmental noise regulations to produce noise action plans, which act as a driver for the management of aircraft noise and for mitigation around airports. Gatwick’s current noise plan sets out its ambition for managing noise between 2024 and 2028; I encourage all Members to get involved in that.

For several decades, the Government have set out noise controls, including restrictions on night operations at Gatwick airport. The controls reflect the need to balance the impact on communities with the benefits to the economy. I am pleased to announce that yesterday the Government published their decision to maintain the current restrictions at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted until 2028. Additionally, airspace modernisation will allow the introduction of new technology, such as performance-based navigation, which will enhance the accuracy of where aircraft fly and provide better opportunities to provide respite for noise-sensitive areas.

One of the main objectives of our airspace modernisation strategy is environmental sustainability. This key principle is applied throughout all modernisation activities and takes into account the interest of all affected stakeholders. The UK has committed to an ambitious target to reach net zero by 2050. We were the first major world economy to enact such a law. We continue to work together with industry to consider the best ways to support the aviation industry to de-carbonise, including through the jet zero taskforce. Airspace modernisation can help us to reach our target by reducing delays and allowing aircraft to fly in more direct routes. That should result in far less fuel burn, and therefore reduce our carbon omissions and potentially the noise impact of flights.

To improve confidence in the delivery of airspace modernisation across the south-east region, my Department and the CAA have launched a consultation on our proposals for a new UK airspace design service. The proposals set out our ambitions to create a single guiding mind responsible for the holistic design of airspace change, to the benefit of all who use our airspace and are affected. I encourage Members to get behind this change. The hon. Member for Horsham is right that there is not a vast wave of expertise in this area in our nation. Our ambition is to bring together the best minds to improve airspace across the whole UK.

I recognise that the Minister has not finished, but I am concerned that his points have, so far, been general. I wholly support the overall ambitions to reduce carbon emissions—I have absolutely no problem with that—but there are two issues. First, the consultation is not a genuine one because there is no real choice. Secondly, we are moving away from a route that is already used and is perfectly reasonable to one with significant resident impacts. I am concerned that the Minister has not addressed those two key issues.

As I have already stated, there is full public consultation at stage 3, and the hon. Member and his constituents will have the right to fully engage in that. I do encourage people to engage in this issue, because we have to modernise our airspace. It will take some time, a lot of energy and a lot of expertise, but it is the right thing to do by our nation.

To conclude, airspace modernisation is vital to unlocking the benefits of a growing UK aviation sector. Without modernising the airspace, we cannot realise the benefits to passengers, communities, operators and the economy. This must be achieved in a sustainable way that minimises the impact on local communities while balancing the strategic benefits that Gatwick airport can bring to the economy.

I thank all Members—the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), the hon. Members for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), and my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb)—for participating, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham on securing this important debate.

Question put and agreed to.