Proposals for a revised airspace change process

As you have provided.

In our case we were confronted with a 'fait accompli' in which large numbers of low-altitude Gatwick-bound aircraft started flying directly over us in late 2013, even though all authorities continued to deny that there had been any change. After Gatwick finally admitted the change in 2015 it was, and remains, unclear the extent to which the stated reasons of safety and reducing flyarounds have been fully proven. An engagement to agree design principles would have avoided a considerable waste of time, effort and animosity that has been created with residents all around the airport and have allowed a democratic process.

Exact nature of the change.
Purpose for the change.
A clear definition of what will change for each class of affected stakeholder.
Measures intended to minimize specific negative side effects.
Definition of key measurements pertaining to prime purpose.
Definition of key measurements pertaining to side-effects.
Historical values of both the above.
Intended values that will define failure and success of the above.

Any original studies that determined the need.
Impact studies (environmental/noise/number of people affected, etc).
Similar case histories.
Best practices elsewhere.

The process of having to consider/consult local communities from the outset will ensure more careful design of the envisaged change and a smother less costly implication process.

There are always unforeseen implications of any change. The process should ensure that these are more likely to be identified as early as possible.

A third-party facilitator should be mandatory. We have increasingly seen with time, in the case of the Gatwick Arrivals Review conducted in 2015/6, the extent to which experts hired by the airport to consult have increasingly refrained from discussing certain inconvenient truths or appear to have modified their final propositions as a result of pressures from outside community groups.

Everything should be made clear. This is the only way to pick up on potential important issues that others might not have seen. It should also have a moderating effect with respect to extreme point of view.

See above.

I agree. An appeal process needs to be independently conducted.

Performance indicators directly related to the purpose.
Other impact indicators as originally defined and agreed.
Any other positive of negative impacts that were unforeseen.
Independent certification of the validity of these measurements.
Summary of any feedback from stakeholders, plus detailed feedback.
Intervening pertinent changes from elsewhere.

(If this doesn't already form part of any of the above):
Guidelines for preparing an impact statement (noise, air pollution, congestion, etc. as it relates to ALL affected communities). With respect to noise perception, this should include not just decibel range, but also geographic spread/positioning of traffic corridors, contrast with background noise level, night and day flights, frequency of overflights (minimum times between successive flights AND flights per hour), altitude ranges and descent and take-off angle distribution within the audible zone should all receive mention and consideration.

No.

None.

Don't know of any.

Any third party managing the consultation process should have oversight of the consultation responses and analysis.

The consultation portal should be separate.

See above.

I suspect estimates of real costs would be impossible. For example, Gatwick's unilateral and secretive arrivals flight path changes in 2013 spawned between 10-20 voluntary community action groups plus dedicated efforts on behalf of local councils, and employment of time on behalf of all parties concerned simply because a democratic process had not been followed in the first place, facts were hidden, unnecessary unproductive animosity created, etc. Apart from any measurable legal costs engendered by a challenge to Gatwick's actions, the overall real social cost engendered has already been colossal, and the lack of trust that still persists and failure to provide answers to some key questions, imply that all this will continue. By tidying up the process, it has to be believed that the CAA would be reducing a considerable amount of wastage of effort, albeit only a small fraction of it measurable in monetary terms.