Leighton-Linslade Town Council difference of opinion to NATS on flight path consultation

The consultation proposal is for change involving separating LLA’s arrivals flightpaths from Stansted’s, and establishing a new hold for LLA, to reduce delays and assure safety for the future.

Two options are being considered. Option one seeks the creation of a new airborne hold stack to the west of St Neots/A1 corridor and easterly operations (approaching aircraft) dispersed over a wider area to Leighton Buzzard’s south, and south of there, at an altitude of 5,000ft.

Option two seeks the creation of a new airborne hold stack to the west of St Neots/A1 corridor and the creation of two routes for easterly operations (approaching aircraft).

Route one is tightly defined to Leighton Buzzard south and south of there at an altitude of 5,000 ft and route two to a tightly defined route to the north of Leighton-Linslade at an altitude of 5,000ft.

NATS is recommending option two but the Leighton Buzzard Society, supported by the Vale of Aylesbury’s consultee body to the LLA, Consultative Committee People Against Intrusive Noise (PAIN), are in favour of option one.

MP for South West Beds Andrew Selous also prefers option one.

At a meeting of the town council’s planning and transport committee on January 27, to seek member direction in respect of the current consultation being carried out by LLA and NATS, the committee confirmed it would take more time to formulate its prefered option ahead of the consultation deadline on February 5.

But today, a spokesperson told the LBO: “The committee recognises the operational benefits that the creation of a holding stack at Grafham Water would provide and is therefore supportive in its creation.

“Of the two flight arrival options being proposed, option one is similar to the route presently operated by LLA (operates for approximately 30 per cent of all landings when the wind direction allows). This sees aircraft more widely spread when compared to option two which would see traffic concentrated on two tightly defined routes.

“At peak times, the regular use of tightly defined routes as set out in option two has the propensity to cause greater noise disturbance to those residents who find themselves living within the option two routes. Of the two consultation options, the planning and transport committee is of the opinion that option one would have a lesser impact on the wider parish.”

Mark Freeman, chair of the planning and transport committee, declared a neutral stance at the meeting due to his son working for NATS, but said: “Councillors don’t want an outcome that is detrimental to the parish.”

To have your say, visit https://www.nats.aero/vr/ad6, responses should be made using the form on the Civil Aviation Authority website: https://consultations.airspacechange.co.uk/london-luton-airport/ad6_luton_arrivals