How it works:
The CAA has prepared a series of proposals, and consultees are then asked whether they agree with each proposal or not, and the reasons for their answer. Many proposals are technical and off-putting, and some of them are difficult to answer as a resident.
To assist you, we have identified the most important proposals and summarised the key issues on this page. These summaries explain the technical terms and why the proposal is relevant to your experience of aircraft noise and disturbance.
Each proposal has a number, and you may like to print this page as an aide-memoire for when you fill in the online questionnaire for these proposals.
You don’t have to comment on all proposals. Instead, focus on the areas that you feel most affect your ability to influence flight paths and protect your well-being. Rejecting bad proposals and having reasons to give will help retain what communities need:
✓ Keeping strong early-stage checks (Gateways)
✓ Keeping early options appraisals and separate stages
✓ Preserving community-specific design principles
✓ Keeping full noise and capacity metrics
✓ Keeping the 12-week minimum consultation period
✓ Keeping Post-Implementation Reviews
These areas give us the best chance of transparency, fairness, accountability, and environmental protection.
The most important proposals affecting residents
We feel these are the most important proposals, listed by proposal number. Just read through the summaries to get a feel for what it’s all about.
At the end of this list is a link to the next page, which contains a toolkit you can use to select the responses which best match your views, turn them into your own words, and perhaps paste them into Notepad ready for when you fill in the online questionnaire.
Proposal 1: Fewer early-stage checks on airports
The CAA is proposing to remove key “gateway” checkpoints that currently:
• stop airports progressing if their evidence is incomplete
• ensure the public can see important documents early
• provide clear regulatory oversight
Replacing these gateways with their informal “milestones” would mean:
• airports can ignore CAA feedback and keep going
• problems will only be caught later, when community influence is minimal
• the process becomes less transparent
This weakens one of the only mechanisms communities have to ensure airports follow the rules from the start.
Proposals 3, 4, 5: Less information available at an early stage
The CAA wants to:
• remove the initial options appraisal (review of options for airspace change based on local context)
• merge two important stages to speed up the process
• create “standard design principles” that may override local needs
Together, these changes would mean:
• fewer opportunities for residents to influence decisions early
• fewer chances to challenge weak evidence or missing noise assessments
• local issues may be overlooked if national principles dominate
• industry may discard options before communities ever see them
For communities, early transparency is crucial. Once options are narrowed, noise impacts become harder to change.
Proposal 7: Hiding the true scale of growth and noise
The CAA proposes to remove capacity metrics from assessments – in other words to hide the additional number of flights a change may enable. The airspace modernisation programme’s main purpose is to enable more flights. Removing capacity metrics means:
• the public may not be told how many more flights a change enables
• noise impacts linked to extra traffic could be underestimated
• important environmental information would no longer be shown publicly
Airports will still study these impacts internally — they just won’t have to share them. This reduces accountability and makes scrutiny harder.
Proposal 10: Shorter consultation periods
The CAA wants to remove the standard 12-week minimum for public consultations.
But community members:
• need time to understand highly technical material
• often respond in evenings/weekends
• rely on volunteers and local groups
• have repeatedly said 12 weeks is already barely enough
Shorter consultations would make it significantly harder for residents to take part meaningfully.
Proposal 15: Removing Post-Implementation Reviews
Currently, when a new route is introduced, the CAA must conduct a Post-Implementation Review (PIR) to check whether:
• the noise is as predicted
• promised benefits materialised
• unexpected harm has occurred
• adjustments or reversals are needed
The CAA proposes replacing PIRs with a general “oversight” programme focused mainly on safety and efficiency – not community noise. Without a PIR:
• communities lose their only formal recourse if the change causes unexpected harm
• airports will not be required to fix problems
• the CAA would no longer be required to investigate or intervene
• harmful flightpaths could become permanent
This is one of the biggest concerns from a community perspective.
Broader concerns affecting communities
You may want to highlight the worrying trends where questions permit:
- Reduced role for community groups
Engagement may be limited to “representatives” — sometimes meaning only elected officials, excluding resident groups that understand the impacts best. - Limited cumulative impact assessment
Some proposals would only assess combined impacts after the design is chosen — too late to influence options. - Noise metrics becoming less informative
Fewer or less appropriate noise metrics could hide the real experience of those under flightpaths. - Rapid processes favour airports, not communities
Shorter, less transparent processes make it easier for airports to move fast and harder for residents to respond effectively.
Follow this link to get to the Toolkit page