Result of Fauch Hill Windfarm survey published

wind-turbinesRecently members of the communities of Kirknewton and West Calder and Harburn have been asked their opinion about the Fauch Hill windfarm proposal – the full report has been published and can be read at Fauch Hill Community Consultation Final Report 080317 (1)




Charles Jencks Gateway to Village art project progresses

Kirknewton Community Council and Kirknewton Community Development Trust have made an application for Planning Consent to West Lothian Council for the proposed Charles Jencks Landform Art at Camps Junction, Kirknewton.  This will improve the disused area of ground to the entrance of our village and  we also hope to improve walking access down the verge.


Our application for funding from West Lothian Council for £20K from the Public Art Grant and an additional £10K from the Village Improvement Funds has been granted conditionally upon us securing planning consent for the work and the asset transfer, which we hope will be successful.

In the coming weeks we hope to engage with young people and the community a little more on the project.  The information has been out in the public domain for some time, online and in the Green Room, and we are keen to get further feedback on the proposals to  The project brief, put together by Charles Jencks, can be read here


Camps Junction land clean up latest

The stage 2 work–(much delayed by the bad weather over the winter–which prevented the screening of the frozen and waterlogged soil) has commenced on the land at Camps Junction. It was originally due to start in December or January.

Kirknewton line drawing Vector

Although still proceeding more slowly than expected, again due to the incessant rain making screening difficult and slow, over 40 % of the area has been completed in the last couple of weeks.

The samples taken of the previously ”contaminated” area with hydrocarbons (from fuelling plant) have been tested and found clear so the process recommended by the Institute of Occupational Medicine, of uncovering this material, and allowing the hydrocarbons to evaporate naturally, has been successful and at minimal cost.

No further unexpected or suspicious materials have been uncovered.

Around 40 tons of waste has been isolated for disposal, but due to the bad weather making the soil extremely cohesive, this is more than the most optimistic estimate, as the fines are not falling though the screen as well as would happen when the soil is dry.

Notwithstanding the various drawbacks and delays, the work is progressing comfortably within the lowest budget so far, and KCDT are not expecting to need to claim the maximum amount granted for the clean up.

Meantime Almond Housing are pursuing consultants to help with the feasibility study.  Again, this is slightly delayed due to consultants year end projects, but this will hopefully progress soon.  West Lothian Council are also being supportive of the project and are helping inform the policy aspects of the Rural Housing Grant application.  KCDT are expected to make an application for approximately £500,000.


Transport Police review their parking near Kirknewton rail barriers

Confirmation from British Transport Police that they have managed to stop their officers from parking (Mostly camera vans) on the station entrance road–risking pedestrian and vehicle accidents, and potential crossing blockage when cars coming over the crossing cannot get into the station for cars coming out, and parked police vans.
Sergeant Ryan Tierney was very helpful in this–having picked the matter up after 2 years of neglect by others.
Simon Constable (not a policeman) of Network Rail has managed to do the same for Network Rail vehicles, (and dumped rails etc which have been a hazard to pedestrians on the way into the station).
Both NR and BTP have now agreed that parking there is causing an obstruction and avoidable risk.
Simon has previously arranged the replacement of some of the double yellow lines–and some no parking signs.
Ryan is looking into the state of and risks associated with, the lack of a footpath, –and the muddy puddle ridden route from the crossing to the platform,– and the extension of the double yellow lines back to the yard gates– where they used to be before the crossing ‘improvements’.
If in future you see  any vehicles (parked between the marked car parking spaces and the junction at the crossing) then please photograph (worth 1000 words) and report to
Network Rail vehicles– (incl contractors vehicles)
Transport Police–
Beware of cars parked on the left but facing out of the station with engines running–they have previously been intent on pursuing late ‘crossing crossers’ down the road–with exiting, oncoming traffic and pedestrians to contend with. This should also have stopped.
Thanks to Cllr Dave King, who pursued this via Police Scotland after the earlier lack of response from BTP.
Kenny Birch

Airport gets rough ride from communities again….

Neil Findlay MSP chaired another well attended and lively meeting of West Lothian residents at Livingston Football Stadium that had angry local people queuing up to grill Edinburgh Airport Chief Executive Gordon Dewar.


Despite 71% of responders from West Lothian telling the airport in the previous 2016 consultation that they did not want new flight paths, many new routes are proposed with most of them over areas not previously affected by aircraft noise.

Edinburgh Airport’s latest flawed consultation process came under fire from people who were previously told they would not be affected and now find there are flight paths directly over them.

People slammed the more than 900 pages of the latest proposals as “poorly designed, unclear and intended to confuse”.

Gordon Dewar apologised for misleading the public and admits the airport has not counted populations affected properly and that no assessment of the health impact on people of new or existing flight paths has been carried out.

Mr Dewar could not answer the question “How can the airport claim to a reduction of 25,000 people overflown when it has failed to count all the people living under the proposed new routes?”

In relation to the huge proposed new housing developments in West Lothian that are planned, Mr Dewar said “Having a plan does not mean it is going to happen”

But he refuses to publish details on what the airport’s plans for their proposed enlarged flight paths are or what it will mean for communities. They refuse to tell us now many planes, what type of planes, what hours of day they might fly and how frequently.

No clear answer was given to the question “What is the problem that the airport is trying to solve?” leading to concerns that this is all about inflating the airport’s value as an asset with little operational justification for change on this scale.

People already living under existing flight paths described unbearable levels of noise every two minutes from 6am to midnight 7 days a week, and being woken during the night by cargo planes. The airport wants to increase its take-offs to one every minute.

Gordon Dewar showed little care for people who had bought their homes under flight paths – and says they would have known about the noise. But says nothing about the “newly overflown” people, who since 2015 have woken up to find themselves living under busy flight paths and who bitterly contest the baseline of flight path use that the airport is using in their consultation process. Noise complaints are at record levels, with a 60 fold increase on 2015 numbers.

Airport says it is building more cargo storage areas, which could mean even more overnight disturbance for Communities from increased night flights. There are no operating hours restrictions at Edinburgh Airport.

Edinburgh Airport chief says Edinburgh Airport “is a big economic engine for the economy” – and claimed (to derision from the audience) that jobs in the Western Isles are dependent on Edinburgh Airport. Unsubstantiated nonsense and spin from a report prepared by consultants paid for by the airport, and the people last night could see it.

 Edinburgh Airport Watch said:

 “The people attending the meeting last night were rightly very worried about the life changing implications of the airport’s proposals and clearly do not trust what the airport is telling them. They are confused by the 900 pages of documents the airport has produced, which also contain factual errors. Many are furious that they were excluded from the first stage of the process.

 People are still not being told what the impact will be of noisy jet aircraft flying over their homes, businesses and schools.

 The cost of unfettered aviation expansion is poorer air quality, traffic chaos on the roads around the airport, more noise misery for neighbours – some of them now 20 miles or more from the runway – and a worsening of Scotland’s already enormous tourism deficit as people take their money out of our economy and spend it elsewhere.

 A health and environmental disaster is unfolding for West Lothian, parts of Falkirk, Fife, East Lothian, Midlothian and Edinburgh with no independent assessment of the consequences of these proposals or any justification for them.

It is difficult to see what sustainable benefit there can be to Scotland or the local area from allowing this airport to expand any further – it is profit before people.

We urge people to respond to the latest consultation process before the end date on 30th April, reject ALL of the proposals on the table, (one of which is the failed 2015 TUTUR trial route that caused uproar and led to 8000 complaints), and write a letter or email to the airport outlining their concerns, copying in: all their elected representatives; MP, MSPs Local Authority Councillors and Community Council; Andrew Haines, the chief executive of the CAA, Humza Yousaf, the Scottish Transport Minister, and Lord Ahmad, the UK aviation Minister, as well as Edinburgh Airport Watch.


Helena Paul 01506 834 006 / 07740 188 301 Email:


Our website:

Find us on Facebook at Edinburgh Airport Watch and on twitter @EAW_group

Kirknewton Edinburgh Airport meeting – 6th March

A sub group of Kirknewton Community Council met with representatives of Edinburgh Airport on 6th March, before their information day in the Village Hall.


In attendance was Stewart McKenna (Chair KCDT/KCC) , Pat Hastings (KCDT/KCC), Vic Garrad (KCDT/KCC), Kenny Birch (KCDT), Tony Foster (CEO KCDT), Julia Bracewell (Newlands) Robin McGill (Newlands), Neil Lovett (East Calder Community Council), Willie Dunn (Calderwood) and Councillor Carl John

From Edinburgh Airport Limited was Gordon Dewar (CEO) and Gordon Robertson (Communications Director)

Since the last meeting EAL attended and the production of the Consultation Book there were a number of questions and queries that needed clarification. (EAL were sent specific questions before the meeting).  Questions are below, with answers.  Some information was requested in response, and that is captured here.  We have attempted to summarise the general comments from a wide ranging discussion in the text below and in this document EAL QUESTIONS – we hope to have responses to questions below by end of March.

Meantime have you say at


(GR) The purpose of the Consultation was to get as much as we could for the decision process, a broad swathe was used.  When we came back to look at the options –   A6 came out as preferred – it’s a new option.


Pop 10 to 15,000

(GR) Weighting Table –we cannot show everything – it’s a presentational issue

Taken from 2011 census data – issue to get population measure, spoken to Planners and Developers BUT known expansions have not been included.  This is why it is a Consultation. BUT we need to evidence the Final Report to CAA

(KB) Population Density – can we have these figures – has not included East Calder, Calderwood etc

(GR) Presentational issue – we can assure you East Calder is included (The population numbers for Calderwood, East Calder etc are not included in the assessment and weightings of route A6—so must be included in another column. East Calder, Calderwood and Newlands would be overflown on route A6, but are not mentioned anywhere as being so—except possibly as ‘closer’)

(RMcG) The Chart is wrong – 2 nautical miles either direction, our concern is you have not looked at it properly. GR TO COME BACK WITH DETAIL

It’s the information we are reading in this document, its justified in graphics BUT not in data.

(GR)  We have an independent Reference Group headed by Dame Sue Bruce with other from Business, Tourism, Environmental, Airport Watch etc who have commented and assessed – Good Practice on the first consultation.

(There was much concern from residents that the ‘’assessment’’ of the consultation was seriously flawed, as it did not cover the route A6, which had been entirely misrepresented to Kirknewton, East Calder and Newlands, and that the ‘’small’’ error of the ‘lost’ consultations was being used as the judgement for the entire process—with all the major errors, omissions and ‘interpretations’’ by EAL –as outlined in these notes, being overlooked due to not being shown to the assessor)


What response from the MOD?

(GR)  They have been consulted but not replied. 


(GR)  It was captured and included (Not visible to any Kirknewton enquiries)

GR to point us to the PAGE on the Website and weightings in the tables


These do not tie up. Graphs and Text not back to back – Figure 7 vectoring above 6000 ft

(GR)  We are now using ARNAV/GPS and Satellite technology (At present using Beacons on the ground – these will be discontinued) allows us to be far tighter. We have no control over 6000 ft – at 4,000ft its still in our control.  Earliest point you can start vector is 4000 ft.

We have had to take a view and try to balance it.

(RMcG) The information in this document is very misleading.  Height is important to Noise – What impact is this going to have?

SMcK Noise Mapping – is it based on theoretical –

(GR) – YES

(SMcK) When does that become live?

Noise footprint, loudness, frequency.

(GR)  Consistent measure

Perception of noise has different impacts to different people.

(GD) We are the fastest growing airport in the UK – people make an informed choice where they live.

(RMcG) Good neighbour – they will have a reason to be part of the consultation.

(GR)  – CAA will decide on balance

What effect will EAL have on these people below the flightpath regardless of conscience?

Noise contours terminate at 70 – what happens beyond that?

(GR) CAA set that

(SMcK) You set the brief.  We could make representation to CAA and ask.

(GR)  We can find that out and let you know


What is the benefit for us?

(GD) There is a one billion economic value having an airport, this does not impact on house values.  This was kept out of the consultation for obvious reasons. We will have to consider this.

(SMcK) Kirknewton has transport issues with the Level Crossing, A71 and have 3 major Powerlines, we carry a pretty heavy burden at present.


Reduced C02 emissions on A6 –this argument is pretty spurious.

(GR) Impacts on design, the greater it takes a plane to Istanbul – not a huge impact.

(SMcK) asked if EAL could advise what emissions resulted from each aircraft operation. Particularly small particulates (PM2.5 and PM10) and NOX.

(GR) admitted that these are at their highest during take-off and he promised to REPORT BACK with the relevant data.

(SMcK) We would prefer the Status Quo – same flight paths- No expansion

(GD) We cannot support that

A3 existing on P39- A6 needed for Turbo Prop and then Jets?s (will inevitably follow)

(GR)  No intention to fly Jets, we are currently using Tala, we would need to talk to Communities if there was jets in the future.

How many planes would fly over A6?

(GR)  Between 39 and 41 per day Turbo only. There is no guarantee we are only looking at routes in general.

Jets get high quickly, Turbo props cannot manage that. Preference is for A and

Operationally A6 is better than A3

(GR)  We can give you Consultation Material and Route Option Design.

GR confirmed that any ‘future’ population was weighed less than existing in EAL assessments, which left the 10,000+ population expected in existing approved development plans, as being less important than others under the flight path

Gordon Dewar left the meeting at 1.30pm as planned.

Councillor Carl John asked about flight paths over schools – we have 6 schools in the area, and this did not seem to be Best Practice.

(GR) Wherever you fly it will be over schools. We took the findings on population and tried our best. (Several queries were made in respect of current and future population figures, but EAL had used 2011 census as ‘best available’’—which was seriously disputed by all residents and councillor)

Councillor John asked for the map with schools plotted on it


New populations impacted

(GR)  to provide and place on consultation website with sufficient time to allow public to view before close of consultation


This table does not include either East Calder or Mid Calder both of which fall into the criteria overflown. EAL includes these communities when addressing impact but the Table 3 does not include this. Table 3 is misleading to the Public, Kirknewton should also be shown as Overflown.  Calderwood should also be taken into account.

REVISE TABLE and Provide detailed information.

(TF) Asked about the group reviewing the Consultation

(GR) stated the Consultation Institute are UK Consultation Professionals who assess us. According to CAPS 725 if you want to change airspace this is the way to do it. We are not using you as guinea pigs.  The runway was built in 1976 and growth has enabled us to do it.  We didn’t show EH27 because we changed the design criteria.

Asked – what weighting are you putting on coming here (GR) said VITAL – We are trying to get the best decision for expansion.   We have to demonstrate to the CAA that we have been vigorous and have to justify the decision making process.

Asked is expansion driving you?

(GR)  said that people want to come here, we are selling Scotland and Edinburgh.  There have already been changes in the terminal, more parking spaces we have to provide a service.  GR suggested the extra flights were necessary due to the international expansion planned—but there is concern that this should be reflected in reduced hub connection flights—eg Heathrow—and this is not shown ? The residents generally felt the real objective is to get more flights out early morning 6.00 am onwards—which objective was actually stated by EAL in the past, and expand the retail and car parking operations for business purposes—as demonstrable on the now extended walk required to simply get from security to a gate—always through catering and retail )

SMcK asked if once the expansion had been done, the Company investing in the airport are investing in success and then making a quick buck selling it on.


(GR)  said he was happy to have a drop in at East Calder.

VG asked if you were to consider not to fly over A6 what would the next preference be.

(GR)  stated that we would put them in A but we need to balance it out.  The airline feedback is to be able to turn quickly to get high quickly and A6 is the option.

GR stated he would share the algorithm on the decisions—including flight numbers, impacts on noise, fuel pollution, risks of overflying and tranquillity.

(This is not the airline or pilots choice—it is EAL plan to get more planes off the ground in a short period)

CAP 725 Tranquillity Measure?

Stewart McKenna thanked Gordon Robertson for his time and looked forward to receiving the updates that have arisen (missing information and corrections which have been promised, expected end of March).

The meeting closed at 2pm.