Environmental and community groups have raised concerns that proposed legislation could prevent local populations from mounting effective challenges to future development at Gatwick Airport.
CAGNE, formally known as Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions, is one of 22 national organisations that have dispatched an open letter to the prime minister expressing alarm over the potential removal of their right to contest aviation-related decisions.
The correspondence contends that the Civil Aviation Bill, which has cleared the House of Lords and undergone its initial Commons reading, would strip communities of any meaningful opportunity to oppose aviation policies that inflicts disproportionate damage upon them.
Critics maintain the legislation would grant extensive regulatory authority to the Civil Aviation Authority while simultaneously diminishing the capacity of local residents to mount any form of challenge.
This reduction in standing, they argue, would prevent communities from objecting to any proposed enlargement of Gatwick Airport.
A delegation comprising representatives from the various groups, including Liberal Democrat MP for Horsham John Milne and Aviation Environment Federation Director Tim Johnson, presented the letter at Downing Street on Tuesday, September 1.
Sally Pavey, who serves as a trustee for CPRE Sussex and co-founded CAGNE, expressed concern that the proposed legislation would deliver an unfavourable outcome for residents.
She stated that communities would face increased decisions made without their involvement while simultaneously being denied any independent mechanism for review.
Pavey emphasised that local populations merit a process that is open, responsible and equitable.
She argued that independent scrutiny already exists for travellers, consumers, and has been proposed within the Clean Water legislation, therefore equivalent protections should extend to communities situated beneath flight corridors.
CPRE Sussex campaigns and communications manager Nancy Duckels voiced her organisation’s solidarity with CAGNE’s push for an independent aviation ombudsman.
Duckels described it as straightforward common sense that residents should possess grounds to contest choices impacting their residences and wellbeing.
She noted that Sussex residents currently face expectations to accept Gatwick’s expansion despite the considerable harm this will inflict upon rural landscapes and local communities.
Duckels warned that without intervention, the CAA legislation would leave Sussex inhabitants entirely without appeal rights concerning alterations to flight paths that would introduce additional pollution.
The correspondence to the prime minister, reviewed by The Argus, articulated that objections centred not on modernisation itself but rather on the lack of a fair and unbiased system through which affected communities could pursue review, redress or intervention when determinations result in disproportionate harm.
The letter noted that those experiencing aircraft noise currently possess extremely restricted practical options for challenge once an airspace modification has concluded its consultation phase.
The signatories worried that the proposed framework could further erode residents’ capacity to request government involvement, pursue substantive appeal, or secure independent examination of determinations potentially affecting thousands of individuals indefinitely.
The letter further observed that populations residing beneath concentrated flight paths, both established and newly created, may confront amplified noise pollution, sleep disruption, psychological distress, diminished enjoyment of their properties, and reductions in property values.
Campaigners called upon Mr Burnham to advocate for the establishment of an independent ombudsman for airspace changes or a comparable oversight institution operating independently from the CAA.
Mr Milne participated in delivering the correspondence to Downing Street and advocated for the creation of an independent aviation ombudsman.
He clarified that the initiative did not constitute opposition to aviation generally but rather represented a matter of fundamental equity.
When consequential choices that influence people’s homes and welfare are determined, Milne asserted, residents ought to have access to a genuinely independent pathway for raising objections beyond the Civil Aviation Authority.
He noted that ombudsman protections operate across numerous other industries and that aviation communities merit equivalent safeguards.
A Department for Transport spokesperson responded that the legislation does not alter current consultation obligations and that communities will maintain meaningful input on airspace modifications potentially impacting them.
The spokesperson explained that the CAA maintains thorough internal systems for addressing grievances and already operates under supervision from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.