Kirknewton / East Calder engagement with Edinburgh Airport – erm, where did our schools go?


image001

Attached is a document of questions to the airport, with their response, and additional comment on that response ECDCC EAL Meeting 6_3_17 Questions EAL response KECC response 7_4_17 (1)

Below are some questions asked at a meeting on 6th March with Gordon Dewar CEO and Gordon Robertson Communications Director and their answers.

The airport were asked for additional information following initial questions, which were answered yesterday.

1       WHY WERE THE POPULATIONS OF EAST AND MID CALDER AND CALDERWOOD EXCLUDED

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

We show Kirknewton as being ‘closer’

 Population density mapping was used to assess the impact of operations on local communities, with population figures taken from the most recent census in 2011. It is not possible to include all towns and villages in the decision making matrix. The areas chosen were selected due to their location or proximity to the proposed flight paths. Although not all towns and villages have been included in the matrix, their populations have still been included in our route design through population density mapping.

1       KIRKNEWTON COMMUNITY COUNCL RESPONSE TO STAGE 1 NOT ACKNOWLEDGED

(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

We did have a response from Kirknewton Community Council, it may have been one of the ones submitted when we were experiencing a problem with our website during the initial consultation.  

1       SOUND PROFILES – ERRORS AND ANOMALIES

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

Noise contours terminate at 70 – what happens beyond that? –

Beyond the 70dBA Lmax contours, the noise from an aircraft will still be audible and a 60dBA contour would extend further along the route.  However at lower noise levels the noise is not intrusive.  Inside a property you would be unlikely to be disturbed by noise from Aircraft below 70dB

1       POLLUTION NOISE AND FUEL BENEFITS LOST BY EAL EXPANSION

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

Please see map showing schools and care facilities attached to the email.

(Schools at Kirknewton, East Calder, Mid Calder, Ratho and Currie seem to be missing from this map?)

1       8.3 RAG GRAPH MISSING

New populations impacted

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

This information has been included in the book in the matrix tables, however the colours in the tables have been changed and explained via the key at the bottom to show positive impact, no change and negative impact.

 

2       TABLE 3 – MANY EXCLUSIONS AND NO EXPLANATION

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.

The route does not fly over Kirknewton, East Calder or Mid Calder but does pass closer than current operations. As we have explained not all towns and villages have been included in the population matrix.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s