Response 651723755

Back to Response listing

About you

A. What is your name?

Name (Required)
Carole Maddison

C. Where do you live?

Please select one item
East of England
East Midlands
West Midlands
North East
North West
Northern Ireland
Ticked South East
South West
Yorkshire and the Humber

D. Are you answering this consultation as:

Please select one item
Ticked Resident affected by aviation
Airline passenger
Member of the General Aviation community
Member of the commercial aviation industry
Government and / or other regulators
Representative or national organisation or institute
Elected political representative

E. Are you affiliated with any organisation?

Please select one item
Ticked No
Please select one item
Ticked No

F. Is there anything else that you would like us to know about you regarding this consultation?

Please enter any further details
Lived at present address for over 30years and never encountered any problem with aircraft disturbance until now and it is making my life a misery. Constant whistle/drone/roar and as it recedes it is followed by the same formate immediately so no peace whatsoever. Keeps us awake at night at wakes us at dawn. it is unbearable. The flightpath goes DIRECTLY OVER OUR HOME.

G. Do you consent for your response to be published?

Please select one item
Ticked Yes, with personal identifying information (name, location, respondent category, organisation, additional information - please note your email address will NOT be published if you choose this option)
Yes, anonymised

General observations

1. Considering the draft guidance overall, to what extent does it meet the following criteria?

Comprehensible – it is clear to me what happens
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion Ticked 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Transparent – the activities are explained well and will take place as publicly as possible
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion Ticked 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
Proportionate – the guidance strikes the right balance between detail as to what should happen, and flexibility to allow for different local circumstances
Please select one item
1: the guidance is good and meets this criterion 2: the guidance mostly meets this criterion Ticked 3: the guidance does not sufficiently meet this criterion
How would you improve?
Luton is the only benefactor of this disturbance financially and it has always been the city where the Airport for this area has been based. People choose to live there knowing this and consequently have cheaper house prices. I would never have CHOSEN to live anywhere with the blight of aircraft roaring overhead. Sandridge has one of the largest Forests in the whole of Europe and the Woodland Park Trust developed all the ground at the back of our house for the environment and nature and all birdsong are drowned by the noisy thundering aircraft as if zipping open the sky overhead!
General observations
As I am writing this planes continue like a factory processing line, destroying the peace and polluting the skies overhead. This is making life totally unbearable and my home is no longer my sanctuary and walking the dog in the Woodland Park and Heartwood Forest does not even provide an escape from the "rat-race" anymore.

Tier 1a: Evidence of engagement

9. At certain stages in the process (starting with the development of design principles at Step 1b) the CAA will look for evidence of a two-way conversation to see that the sponsor has adequately engaged stakeholders. In paragraph C9 the CAA describes the evidence that we will look for as "detail of what sponsors have been told by their audiences; how they responded to this feedback; and how it has affected the proposals they are bringing forward".    Has the CAA adequately detailed what we would expect to see to know that a two-way conversation has taken place?

Please select one item
Ticked No
Don't know
What else to show two way conversation?
As usual, it is all about greed. Creating a route which is open to abuse by the Airport. This has caused such an increase in the volume of airtraffic whereby making the noise constant and the accompanying disturbance unrelenting. I would welcome someone to come into my house and hear this disturbance for themselves. It has ruined our lives and wrecked our sleep.

Tier 1a: Categorisation of responses

12. In paragraphs 177 and C34-C36, and Table C2, we discuss the categorisation of consultation responses. The sponsor is required to sort consultation responses into two categories: i) those responses that have the potential to impact on the proposal because they include new information or ideas that the sponsor believes could lead to an adaptation in a lead design option or a new design option, and ii) those that do not. Is the CAA's explanation of the categorisation exercise and description of the categories sufficient?

Categorisation - additional detail
This is a ridiculously long and pointless exercise.

Tier 1a: Options appraisal

13. In paragraph E25 and E34 the CAA states that methodologies for the various aspects of the options appraisal should be agreed between the CAA and the sponsor at an early stage in the process, on a case-by-case basis. This provides flexibility for different local circumstances. Does this approach strike the right balance between proportionality and consistency?

OA - explain re proportionality
Can we not just make one simple statement instead of filling out so MUCH paperwork?

Tier 1c: Operational airspace trials

16. Considering Tier 1c changes, to what extent does the draft guidance on operational airspace trials meet the following criteria?

How to improve
How much more?