JUST over half of Fifers who took part in the latest consultation are unhappy about proposals to change flight paths at Edinburgh Airport.

A report on the second stage of the consultation process has revealed a total of 1085 individuals, eight organisations and three officials from Fife submitted their views.

The document – which details who responded, where they were, and what they said – will now help shape Edinburgh Airport’s flight change proposals and recommendations to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) later this summer.

Totalling 28 per cent of the overall responses, 51 per cent of these who replied in Fife expressed negative sentiments, 25 per cent were positive while the remaining 24 per cent were neutral.

There were 1117 negative comments about noise and 689 negative comments about the consultation process.

The airport wants to change the flight paths as it says current routes rely on 1950s technology.

However their plans raised concerns about an increase in the number of planes passing over West Fife homes, with residents worried about more noise and air pollution.

In April, Mid Scotland and Fife MSP Alex Rowley called for it to be halted as he said the consultation was full of contradictions, lacked vital information and was misleading.

Inverkeithing and Dalgety Bay councillor Dave Dempsey previously said the preferred options provided a "double whammy" for south Fife as planes would be lower than before, which would mean more noise.

He also expressed fears that North Queensferry would be the only place under a flight path 365 days a year.

Airport chief executive Gordon Dewar said views would be carefully considered as they shaped their final proposals.

“A change in Edinburgh’s airspace is much needed in order to follow the current modernisation of all airspace across the UK, as well as building capacity to meet current and future demand," he explained.

“But it must be balanced and managed in a way that benefits Edinburgh and Scotland as a whole and minimises the impact on local communities. That’s why the rich and informed conversations we’ve had have been so important – to inform, debate and scrutinise.

“We have actively listened and had those discussions – full-blooded at times – to gain a greater understanding of the public’s view on these proposals, which was the key aim from this second consultation."

Speaking after the report's publication, Alex Rowley is still keen to see an end to the process.

"The number of responses to the second consultation show how concerned people still are," he said. "And the fact is that most people responding are unhappy with the proposals from Edinburgh Airport. I still believe that the whole consultation process has been flawed beyond repair, and call again for it to be halted.”

Dunfermline MSP Shirley-Anne Somerville said it was encouraging that the percentage of negative responses in Fife has decreased from 67 per cent to 51 per cent since the initial consultation.

"This indicates to me that Edinburgh Airport have gone some way to allying Fifers’ concerns, between the two stages of the consultation," she said.

“However, many people in West Fife still have legitimate concerns about noise pollution, the environment, time of flying, and the consultation process itself."

"I have previously met with senior Airport officials to discuss those concerns, and I was encouraged by their commitment to establishing an independent noise board, as well as to reviewing the times of flights.

"Edinburgh Airport is tremendously important to the East of Scotland economy, but the right balance must be struck, so that residents’ concerns are fully considered and accommodated."

Green MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Mark Ruskell, said he couldn't see how Edinburgh Airport could justify implementing any of the flight paths after seeing the amount of negative comments.

"Concerns over noise, air pollution and wildlife were top of peoples’ complaints – these are issues which affect us all and shifting a line on a map is not going to change this.

"I hope the CAA takes these failures and the concerns of the public into full account when deciding on the future of our public airspace.”