Monday, 21 April 2008
Digital newsroom assignment two related article with pictures I would put with the article
THE TRANQUILITY of a rural community in Suffolk is under threat from a proposal of airspace changes for Stansted Airport.
Needham Market is a small town of listed buildings and small individual shops surrounded by Suffolk countryside. But the rural tranquillity it currently experiences could change next year.
The National Air Traffic Service (NATS) have proposed changes to the airspace around Stansted Airport in the Terminal Control North (TC North) Airspace proposal. If the proposal is passed by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) the changes will be put in place by the beginning of next year.
NATS want to create a new stack, or hold, for aeroplanes destined for Stansted Airport above Needham Market and the surrounding villages. The stack will be approximately five miles long and two miles wide.
The proposed stack is above Needham Market because one of the current stacks for Stansted Airport is near an area of outstanding natural beauty; Dedham Vale. The residents in that area have complained about the aeroplane noise from the stack so it is being moved.
Stacks are designated areas for arrival flights to fly through before they descend to the runway. The ceiling height of a stack is fourteen thousand feet, and the lowest point is seven thousand feet. Aeroplanes fly through it at one thousand foot intervals and have to leave it at seven thousand feet. On average it takes four minutes for an aeroplane to fly through a stack.
Wendy Marchant, 68, of the High Street, Needham Market, is a Mid Suffolk District Cllr for Needham Market and Badley. She said: “I’m concerned about the noise above Needham Market. When I was taking a petition around Needham Market one or two people were also concerned about the risk factor; they weren’t too happy about planes flying overhead, but I think the main concern is the noise that it would create.”
She added: “I think the majority would rather we didn’t have it, but they realise it still has to go somewhere. That is why we want to know why it can’t go over the North Sea.”
The noise from the stack would be more than the noise that Needham Market High Street currently experiences. The estimated noise from the stack is 70 decibels, which is equivalent to a car travelling at 40 miles per hour, 24 feet away. But if Stansted Airport does expand air traffic in the stack will increase and so will the noise.
The majority of residents in Needham Market are against the proposal going ahead. Ron Back, 69, of Needham Market, said: “I’m not in favour of the stacking proposals because I don’t feel it is right that it should be situated over a rural area. An urban area has quite a lot of noise from traffic and other sources whereas the countryside should be allowed to enjoy a relative degree of tranquillity. That is why people live there and move there to escape the noise.”
NATS refused to attend a Mid Suffolk environment policy panel on March, 25, 2008. They would only attend a meeting with Mid Suffolk District Council if it was a private consultation with two Conservative District Officers, two Green District Officers, two Labour District Officers, and one Clerk. But they did attend a public meeting with Needham Town Council on April, 16, 2008, to discuss the proposal.
ENDS
Digital newsroom assignment two main article with images I would put with article
PROPOSED changes of airspace around Stansted Airport may cause future problems for rural communities in East Anglia.
The Terminal Control North (TCN) Airspace change proposal has been put forward by the National Air Traffic Service (NATS) and will mainly affect the Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, and North East Essex area.
The proposal is the biggest of its kind in four years and has been labelled as the “Biggest-ever consultation on airspace change”. It has mostly changed the flight paths for arrivals into Stansted Airport and the location and number of flight stacks.
NATS say the changes are based on the estimated growth and increasing demand for flights from Stansted Airport.
From 2007 to 2014 the predicted growth per year of the airport is 3.5 per cent. The Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) estimate that in Britain, from 2007 to 2021, the number of domestic flights will increase by 40 per cent and the number of foreign flights will increase by 50 per cent.
A public consultation about the proposal, by NATS, was started on February 21, 2008. The deadline for feedback on the proposal is May 22, 2008, when the consultation will finish.
Currently there are two plane stacks, Abbot and Lorel, in East Anglia. They are shared by Stansted Airport and Luton Airport. These will be replaced with one stack for flights destined for Luton Airport and two stacks for flights destined for Stansted Airport.
Flight stacks, or holds, are designated areas in the air for arrival flights to fly through before they land. The shape of a stack is an upside down cone.
In the NATS proposal the top of the stacks are at fourteen thousand feet and finish at seven thousand feet; aeroplanes fly within the stack at one thousand foot intervals. Aeroplanes have to join a stack at the lowest available point and have to leave a stack at seven thousand feet; it takes on average four minutes for an aeroplane to fly through a stack.
Another big change in the NATS proposal is the location of flight paths for arrivals into Stansted Airport. Both the easterly and westerly arrival flight paths have been dramatically altered. They, along with the proposed flight stacks, are over more rural areas.
NATS refused to comment over the phone about the change in flight paths and stacks, but said in a document: “Just like bottlenecks on our roads, increased air traffic causes congestion in the airways meaning delay and extra fuel burn-and that has an impact on the environment. Redrawing the routes enables us to make them more efficient to reduce delay.”
Tom Johnson, 39, of Bromley, South East London, is the director for the AEF, and disagrees with NATS’ aims for the proposal. He said: “In general terms they are presented as if there is a noise benefit, emissions benefit, and that it is for the good of the environment. This is really about putting more aircraft into our skies, each aircraft in our sky is a noise event and therefore for every winner in terms of a moved flight path that goes away from them, there has to be a looser.”
He added: “I think NATS feels in particular that in trying to get noise away from urban areas it is fair to effectively dump it on the countryside.”
There are criticisms of the public consultation since it started. Many people in the rural areas that the new stacks and flight paths will potentially affect, think the information provided from NATS is inadequate. The availability of the proposal and consultation documents and feedback process of the proposal have also been criticised.
But the biggest criticism has been that NATS have declined many invitations to speak to communities, pressure groups, and even councils.
Alastair Norman is the creator of a website campaigning for rural peace, in opposition to the NATS proposal. He would feel let down if the proposal was passed. He said: “My opinion is that the new flight paths and stacks will be detrimental to the peace and tranquillity of our countryside from noise and visual intrusion.”
Many action groups are campaigning against the NATS proposal in the rural communities of Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, and North East Essex. They are all concerned about the NATS proposal because it does not take into account a possible Stansted Airport expansion.
The proposal has to be passed by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). If it passes it will be put in place at the beginning of next year.
Melvyn Nice, from the Stansted Media Centre, said: “The safe and efficient management of airspace in the south-east of England is a very important issue and we urge as many people as possible to take part in the NATS public consultation process.”
ENDS
Monday, 25 February 2008
More trouble in Parliament
British politics and the house of commons are facing a new problem...what to do with the commons speaker Michael Martins.
There is great pressure for him to step down from his position after his spokesman, Mike Granatt, resigned last Friday. His reason; because he was misled about the use of taxis by Mr Martin's wife, and gave the wrong information to a journalist. Apparantly Mrs Martins has used more than £4000 on taxis, an innapropriate use of the public's money, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is investigating this. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Mr Martins has apparently used more of the public's money innapropriately.
This is another problem British politics doesn't need, especially after the Conway problem.
Benedict Brogan from the Daily Mail comments in his blog that there is a similarity between this situation and the situation before Blair stepped down as Prime Minister. He said: "There's something of the Blair saga about the predicament Michael Martin finds himself in. When the former Prime Minister was under fire and facing calls to quit in favour of Gordon Brown, there were always those who cautioned a period of silence. Only when things were quiet and he was not under pressure, we were told, would Mr Blair agree to go. What he wanted was to be able to leave at a time of his own choosing, without appearing to be frog-marched to the exit by his enemies in the Commons and the media. Lay off and he'll do the right thing, that was the idea.
Mr Martin is in the same boat. There is no shortage of MPs, including Labour ones, who don't think much of him as a Speaker, and rather wish he would do Parliament a favour by taking his peerage and shuffling off the stage."
(Source: http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/2008/02/silence-and-the.html)
But with comments from members of the Commons such as "he's got a problem" the Government and other MPs don't want to make a definate decision. Gordon Brown declared he was a "very very good" speaker in the Guardian today, and David Cameron described the attack on Mr Martins as a "witch hunt". So the position of the house of commons is unclear.
But there is great pressure from the British media and the public for him to resign after this latest scandal.
There is not only a scandal with his wife's spending of the public's money. Mike Smithson said:
"This follows the row over him claiming a second-homes allowance on his constituency house in Glasgow – even though he has no mortgage on it and he is provided with what is described as a “lavish grace-and-favour apartment in the Commons"...Will he survive? I would not bet on it but you don’t get to progress in Glasgow Labour politics without being tough."
(Source: http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/02/24/will-martin-survive-the-expenses-row/)
This latest episode does not improve the public's faith in today's politics.
There is great pressure for him to step down from his position after his spokesman, Mike Granatt, resigned last Friday. His reason; because he was misled about the use of taxis by Mr Martin's wife, and gave the wrong information to a journalist. Apparantly Mrs Martins has used more than £4000 on taxis, an innapropriate use of the public's money, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is investigating this. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Mr Martins has apparently used more of the public's money innapropriately.
This is another problem British politics doesn't need, especially after the Conway problem.
Benedict Brogan from the Daily Mail comments in his blog that there is a similarity between this situation and the situation before Blair stepped down as Prime Minister. He said: "There's something of the Blair saga about the predicament Michael Martin finds himself in. When the former Prime Minister was under fire and facing calls to quit in favour of Gordon Brown, there were always those who cautioned a period of silence. Only when things were quiet and he was not under pressure, we were told, would Mr Blair agree to go. What he wanted was to be able to leave at a time of his own choosing, without appearing to be frog-marched to the exit by his enemies in the Commons and the media. Lay off and he'll do the right thing, that was the idea.
Mr Martin is in the same boat. There is no shortage of MPs, including Labour ones, who don't think much of him as a Speaker, and rather wish he would do Parliament a favour by taking his peerage and shuffling off the stage."
(Source: http://broganblog.dailymail.co.uk/2008/02/silence-and-the.html)
But with comments from members of the Commons such as "he's got a problem" the Government and other MPs don't want to make a definate decision. Gordon Brown declared he was a "very very good" speaker in the Guardian today, and David Cameron described the attack on Mr Martins as a "witch hunt". So the position of the house of commons is unclear.
But there is great pressure from the British media and the public for him to resign after this latest scandal.
There is not only a scandal with his wife's spending of the public's money. Mike Smithson said:
"This follows the row over him claiming a second-homes allowance on his constituency house in Glasgow – even though he has no mortgage on it and he is provided with what is described as a “lavish grace-and-favour apartment in the Commons"...Will he survive? I would not bet on it but you don’t get to progress in Glasgow Labour politics without being tough."
(Source: http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/02/24/will-martin-survive-the-expenses-row/)
This latest episode does not improve the public's faith in today's politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)