En­dur­ing, not en­joy­ing, VIP flights

Harefield Gazette - - OPINION - ANNA WIL­LIAMS Email supplied ROY D BAR­WICK Moor Lane, Har­mondsworth

I WRITE in re­sponse to your cor­re­spon­dent JE Massey (RAF Northolt – a De­fence, Gazette letters, Septem­ber 2).

Thou­sands of Hilling­don peo­ple are fac­ing one of the most se­ri­ous prob­lems that res­i­dents can face. This is the in­creas­ing num­ber of low fly­ing pri­vate VIP jets tak­ing off and land­ing us­ing Northolt Air­port fa­cil­i­ties – pow­er­ful , pol­lut­ing, and noisy which pose well-doc­u­mented threats to liv­ing con­di­tions and per­sonal health.

Pri­vate flights now out­num­ber RAF oper­a­tions and this will be al­lowed to in­crease.

The num­ber of RAF air­craft move­ments are small. It is pri­vate VIP-laden jets (where a few peo­ple on each flight are dis­turb­ing thou­sands of Hilling­don res­i­dents) which are not small – MOD sta­tis­tics avail­able show that be­tween Jan and April 2014 there were 3,694 civil­ian flight move­ments for Northolt air­port.

When the to­tal flight move­ments in­creases to 12,000 a year and res­i­dents are fac­ing prob­lems as­so­ci­ated with Heathrow and Lon­don City Air­port how many res­i­dents will, as JE Massey thinks, ‘en­joy’ the day in day out dis­mal con­di­tions?

J E Massey’s men­tion of de­vi­a­tions from flight paths is only one of the im­por­tant ques­tions re­lat­ing to oper­a­tions of the pri­vate VIP flights – where are the bor­ough plan­ning reg­u­la­tions for the pri­vate com­pany shar­ing Northolt Air­port with the RAF?

Af­ter the ju­di­cial re­view (Jan­uary 2015) who is re­spon­si­ble for the safety of civil­ian air­craft – the MOD or CAA? Any­one?

As for the out­stand­ing sup­port our com­mu­nity has al­ways will­ingly given to the MOD’s RAF and med­i­cal oper­a­tions per­haps this has now be­come mis­placed as the MOD al­low thou­sands of low fly­ing pri­vate com­mer­cial VIP jets to roar over schools, com­mu­nity cen­tres, homes and work­places. Who was con­sulted?

Spear­head­ing a cam­paign for the re­lo­ca­tion of this pri­vate com­pany to a suit­able site should be co­or­di­nated by our rep­re­sen­ta­tives. The bor­ough should start pro­fes­sional data col­lec­tion of noise and pol­lu­tion lev­els and in­ves­ti­gate safety is­sues to pre­vent the mis­ery res­i­dents ex­pe­ri­ence near Heathrow and City Air­port hap­pen­ing here soon.

If you are af­fected by noise and pol­lu­tion and wor­ried about safety is­sues re­lat­ing to com­mer­cial oper­a­tions at Northolt Air­port register your views with the bor­ough En­vi­ron­ment Pro­tec­tion Unit and with Boris John­son who must take this mat­ter for­ward. on the visit by res­i­dents to the homes of Heathrow bosses, Messrs Hol­land-Kaye and Gor­man in ru­ral Ox­ford­shire (Gazette, Septem­ber 9).

Si­t­u­ated as they are, far re­moved from the sights and sounds of the air­port and the threat of the evic­tions that they would seek to im­pose upon oth­ers.

To use the old navel say­ing: “pull the boat up Jack I’m al­right.”

At the same time they fail to of­fer lo­cal res­i­dents even the ba­sic re­as­sur­ance that might go some way to al­lay their anx­i­eties.

Lo­cal res­i­dents have be­come ac­cus­tomed to the com­mer­cial ill man­ners of Mr Hol­land-Kaye in not re­ply­ing to their cor­re­spon­dence.

Could I through the col­umns of your pa­per put the fol­low­ing points to him?

1. Would Heathrow Ltd give an un­der­tak­ing that no one to be evicted would be any worse off than if the ex­pan­sion of Heathrow had not oc­curred?

2. That what­ever their ex­ist­ing in­ter­est is they would be of­fered like for like.

3. That com­pen­sa­tion should be paid for un­usual dis­tur­bance and dis­tress?

4. That any pay­ment should be paid in full be­fore any­one is re­quired to va­cate their home?

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.