This page will help you create reasons to reject proposals you disagree with. You do not need technical expertise. Everything is written in plain language.

Consultation replies are filled in online as answers to a series of questions. Questions are typically:

Qn# Do you agree with the proposal to do such and such (some are quite technical) ?

Please tell us why you have responded in this way?

The sections below explain each proposal and suggest some “starter thoughts” on which you can base your answers – using your own words to express the responses which you feel are most relevant.

We’d suggest typing your responses into Notepad first, numbered by proposal, and then copy/pasting them into the online questionnaire at the end. Otherwise it may all take too long and a part-done response may not be saved.

How to use the suggestions

For each proposal:
- Read the short explanation and put the proposal number into NotePad
- Base your response on the suggestions which most resonate with you
- Personalise the words and add any additional thoughts of your own
At the end we provide the link to the CAA’s consultation form
You can then respond to the proposals you want to engage with and copy/paste from NotePad
Please make sure to submit your reply before the 18th December deadline.

Your response will then be counted as your individual view, not part of a bulk submission.

PROPOSAL 1 – Should early “gateway” checks be weakened?

Gateways are checkpoints where the CAA must confirm airports have met the rules before they can continue.
The CAA is proposing to replace the first two gateways with informal “milestones”, which do not stop progress even if requirements are not met.

This affects transparency, trust, and early accountability.

Suggestions on which to base your response

I believe the current gateways should remain in place, because they provide essential checks that help ensure the process is transparent and accountable.

Replacing gateways with milestones reduces the CAA’s ability to intervene early if requirements aren’t met, which limits community influence when it matters most.

Gateways make sure important documents are complete and published early. Without them, key information may only emerge late in the process.

Communities already struggle to engage with airspace change. Weakening early oversight could worsen that.

Optional detail

The consultation itself recognises that gateways give assurance that rules have been followed so far.
Without that assurance, flaws may only be detected at a late stage.

Personalise your response

Add 1–2 sentences such as:

“Early checks matter to me because…”
“Our community has previously experienced late-stage surprises…”

PROPOSALS 3, 4 & 5 – Should early stages be simplified, shortened, or standardised?

These proposals work together to:

remove early assessments
merge Stages 1 and 2
introduce national design principles that may override local needs

This would reduce early community influence and increase the risk that options are discarded before residents see them.

Suggestions on which to base your response

I disagree with reducing or merging early stages because communities need meaningful opportunities to engage before decisions are locked in.

Standard design principles should not override site-specific concerns or reduce the importance of locally agreed principles.

Removing the Initial Options Appraisal would eliminate an important point where the public can challenge assumptions and identify missing evidence.

If Stages 1 and 2 are merged, options may be rejected before communities are aware they existed.

Optional detail

Fewer published documents means less transparency.
The justification for removing early appraisals is unclear and risks weakening accountability.

Personalise your response

Try adding:

“Our community has specific concerns about noise / geography…”
“We have seen how early decisions shape final outcomes…”

PROPOSAL 7 – Should key noise and capacity metrics be removed?

The CAA proposes to reduce the number of metrics airports must publish — including removing capacity metrics.
Capacity is directly linked to noise: more flights generally mean more noise.

Removing these metrics would hide the scale of growth from public view.

Suggestions on which to base your response

I strongly disagree with removing capacity metrics. These are essential for understanding how many extra flights could result from airspace changes.

If airports are not required to publish capacity or economic impacts, communities lose the ability to scrutinise proposals effectively.

Airports will still consider capacity and economic effects, but the public would no longer have visibility.

Metrics like numbers of flights above a given annoyance level are far more relevant to residents than long-term averages.

Optional detail

Removing capacity metrics risks understating cumulative impacts on health, noise, and air pollution.
Expert organisations argue that noise metrics should be strengthened, not weakened.
Aircraft noise at night is harmful to health and the utmost clarity is required.

Personalise your response

Examples:

“Noise levels already affect daily life in my area because…”
“Understanding the scale of possible flight increases is essential for my community because…”

PROPOSAL 10 – Should the 12-week consultation standard be removed?

The CAA wants to remove the reference to 12 weeks as the standard minimum length for consultations.
Shorter consultations make it harder for communities to participate meaningfully.

Suggestions on which to base your response

The 12-week period should remain because these consultations are technical and require time to understand.

Many residents must respond around work and caring responsibilities. Shorter consultations make meaningful engagement harder.

The Government’s own Consultation Principles expect processes to be tailored to the needs of those affected.

Optional detail

Previous consultations showed the majority of respondents wanted to keep the 12-week standard.
Removing it weakens the transparency and fairness of the process.

Personalise your response

Examples:

“I wouldn’t have time to respond fully in a short consultation period because…”
“Our community relies on volunteers who need time to review documents…”

PROPOSAL 15 – Should Post-Implementation Reviews be removed?

Post-Implementation Reviews (PIRs) are currently the only formal way for communities to report if a new route causes unexpected harm.
The CAA proposes replacing them with a general oversight process focused mainly on safety and efficiency.

This would remove the mechanism that protects communities after new paths begin operating.

Suggestions on which to base your response

I strongly disagree with removing PIRs. They are the only structured way to verify that real-world impacts match what was promised.

A general oversight programme that focuses on safety and efficiency is not a substitute for a formal review of community impacts.

Without PIRs, harmful flightpaths may become permanent, with no clear path to correction.

Knowing that the CAA can intervene after implementation reassures residents that their concerns matter.

Optional detail

The CAA currently has the authority to require modifications or reversals if impacts are unacceptable: removing PIRs eliminates this safeguard.
An airport operator must demonstrate to the CAA that the design has delivered in operational and noise terms what is required.

Personalise your response

Examples:

“Our area was previously affected by unexpected additional noise as a result of …”
“We need confidence that additional harms will be investigated and fixed …”

Final Step: fill in the CAA’s online questionnaire

Open the CAA’s consultation form, which is found in the “complete the consultation” box at the bottom of the CAA introduction page which you can find at this link.
Fill in the “About you” details as a “Resident affected by aviation” in the “East of England”
Select each key proposal, say whether you agree or not, and copy in your personal response
Please make sure you respond before the deadline of 18th December.

Every individual response counts.

Every personal experience strengthens the case.

Thank you.