Aircraft Noise: Local Communities

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to finally begin the Adjournment debate. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this important and timely debate.

As the MP for a very vocal airport community, I welcome the Minister to his role and reassure him that he will be hearing from me a great deal over the coming Parliament. This topic is close to my constituents’ hearts. Every morning, at 4.30 am, they hear jet engines above their heads; every year, a Heathrow airport executive threatens to bring back the third runway; and every decade, a new proposal to change the flight paths is put forward.

My constituents are not alone. In the UK, more than 23% of the British population live between two and 10 miles from an airport. Although they accept that aircraft noise is a fact of life, they should not be asked to tolerate constant attempts to increase the number of flights above their homes. In the opening months of this new Parliament, Labour has a chance to step away from the damaging policies of the past and build a new relationship with airport communities—a relationship in which the needs of local people and our environment are genuinely balanced against the demands of the aviation industry.

To begin rebalancing the relationship, I urge the Department for Transport to consider three requests: first, to acknowledge the health impacts of night flights on airport communities and work to ban them above heavily populated areas; secondly, to accept that the expansion of Heathrow airport would fly in the face of Britain’s climate targets and have an unacceptable impact on my constituents in Richmond Park and elsewhere across London and the south-east; and thirdly, to recognise that any proposals to change flight paths above London and the south-east should be accompanied by a proposal for a “do minimum” approach, ensuring that people do not have to accept change merely for the sake of change.

I turn first to night flights, which are the most intrusive form of aircraft noise. There is clear evidence that they harm the physical health of residents who live under flight paths. Long-term exposure to nocturnal aircraft noise is strongly linked to sleep disorders and broader health impacts.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that point and for securing this incredibly important debate. Like her constituents, the residents of Twickenham, Teddington, Whitton and the Hamptons are very concerned about the impact of aircraft noise above them. Does she agree that, given that the Civil Aviation Authority itself has acknowledged evidence that long-term aircraft noise has a harmful effect on children’s memory, sustained attention, reading comprehension and reading ability, for the sake of their health we need strict restrictions on night flights across our constituencies and all of west London? Frankly, at the moment these massive jet engines are flouting the rules overnight on a regular basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is right. She speaks passionately on behalf of her constituents in Twickenham, who I know are blighted by these issues just as much as my constituents in Richmond Park. She is right about the health impacts of long-term exposure to nocturnal aircraft noise, which is strongly linked to sleep disorders and broader health impacts.

For each additional 10 dB of night-time aircraft noise that communities are exposed to, there is an increase of between 14% and 69% in residents’ risk of high blood pressure, increasing the risk of strokes and heart attacks. Other researchers have found links between long-term exposure to aircraft noise and an increased risk of obesity, depression and cardiovascular issues.

The human cost of these flights is substantial, but when I have raised this issue in the House, Ministers have fallen back on a study by York Aviation that argued that night flights add billions to our economy. That study has been repeatedly challenged on both its outcomes and methodology, and I urge the Minister to instruct his officials to examine the wider body of evidence.

Researchers at the transport research service and consultancy CE Delft found that a ban on night flights would harm the national economy only if the passengers who currently arrive on scheduled flights before 6 am were not transferred to other flights. In addition, the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise has pointed out that estimates of the value of night flights often massage definitions of night-time jobs, which inflate key figures. In the light of that, I urge the Government to commit to commissioning a full independent analysis on the impact of night flights on our economy, residents’ physical health and local people’s mental wellbeing, to inform a potential ban on night flights at Heathrow.

While night flights are a constant concern to my residents, the spectre of the third runway continues to hang over south-west London. Hansard shows that the third runway has been mentioned no fewer than 115 times in this House, and has been the topic of three debates, two early-day motions and countless open letters. Despite the efforts of dozens of MPs, the last Government resolutely refused to abandon the project. They said that we should ignore the 210 million tonnes of carbon dioxide that it would generate every year, the £100 billion it would cost to clean up the damage that the runway would do to our environment, and the impact it would have on air quality in our communities.

[Munira Wilson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no way that this Government can meet their net zero and climate commitments if they give the green light to a third runway at Heathrow, as has been widely reported? Indeed, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has been on record in the past as having been very against a third runway at Heathrow. He should be fighting the corner of the environment and our planet, and the health and wellbeing of our constituents, by standing up to the Department for Transport’s giving any green light to a third runway at Heathrow.

[Sarah Olney]

Again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the past week the Prime Minister gave new impetus to the achievement of our net zero targets, and it is essential that we have another look at the damage that a third runway would cause at Heathrow. We must seriously re-examine the case for proceeding and, as my hon. Friend says, also look at the impact it would have on our communities.

A meta-analysis of 70 studies published between 2000 and 2020 has shown that researchers consistently find elevated levels of ultra-fine particulate matter in airport communities. Constant exposure to those particulates can lead to decreased lung function, oxidative DNA damage, and premature death. Allowing the third runway and the 260,000 flights that it will add to London’s skies is not only an annoyance to residents; it is a risk to their health.

The third runway would have further far-reaching consequences other than simply tainting the air that my constituents breathe. At COP29 this week, the Prime Minister vowed to cut UK emissions by 81% before 2035, but his own Chancellor has refused to take the third runway off the table. I know from reading the 115 references to the third runway in Hansard that Ministers from both main parties are happy to avoid answering questions from Opposition MPs. For that reason I urge the Minister to consider the words of his colleague, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who said:

“I raise the issue of the Heathrow third runway gingerly, but if we are so serious about this climate emergency, I do not see how we cannot look at all the things that the Government and the private sector are doing and ask whether they make sense in a net zero world.”—[Official Report, 24 June 2019; Vol. 662 , c. 522.]

In the last Division on the third runway, seven members of the current Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, opposed expansion. I urge the Minister to work across Departments to ensure that Government policy reflects their commitments to our local communities and our planet before any decision on the third runway is made.

Finally, night flights and the third runway have been constant sources of concern to my residents over the past decade, but they must now contend with the Government’s new proposals for airspace modernisation. Although I understand that the proposals are intended to improve efficiency at the airport and bring aviation in London into the 21st century, I ask for caution. Last year, the London Assembly passed a motion calling on the airport to recognise the damage that its proposals would have on Richmond Park’s wildlife and ecology. The motion highlighted that redirecting 60,000 planes over London’s largest nature reserve flies in the face of decades of conservation efforts. Indeed, the noise from long-haul flights and the additional pollution from fuel dumping could change that fragile ecosystem for years to come.

At the same time, airspace modernisation would lay the groundwork for an increase in the number of aircraft movements at Heathrow, and expose new communities across south-west London to aircraft noise directly above their homes for the first time. The proposed UK airspace design service will of course help to guide the development of those new flight paths, but it is essential that the public are given a genuine chance to choose between the proposals. When the proposed flight path systems are put to public consultation next year, I urge the Minister to ensure that residents can choose a “do minimum” option. New guidance systems can be integrated, and small amendments to current systems made, but ultimately there should be an option to maintain the path in a roughly similar location. We should not ask communities simply to accept change for the sake of change. They deserve a real choice over the future of their skies, rather than a forced decision between bad options.

London is one of the most overflown capital cities in the western world. Hundreds of thousands of Londoners across the city experience the negative impacts of aircraft noise, yet the Government tiptoe around real measures that would improve residents’ lives. By banning night flights, abandoning the third runway, and giving our constituents a genuine choice over the positioning of flight paths, Ministers would demonstrate to London’s airport communities that we are being heard. The previous Government’s policy on the aviation sector was marked by an inability to stand up for the rights of communities in the face of Heathrow and other airports. The Minister now has a chance to be better than his predecessors, to put people before profit, and to consider what is really best for the capital and airport communities across the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this debate about the impact of aircraft noise on local communities, and I thank her for her speech. Aviation noise presents a sensitive issue. I grew up under the flight path to Manchester airport, and I remember the BAC one-elevens, the Tridents and Concorde. As a school child I saw the space shuttle do a low pass on a jumbo jet, which inspired me for the rest of my life. Thank God we do not have those planes any more, given the smell that they emitted. However, we need to strike a fair balance between the impact of aviation on the local environment and communities, and the economic benefits that flights bring. That is the challenge for aviation noise policy.

The hon. Lady spoke passionately about the impact of aviation on noise levels, and I recognise that noise from aircraft, particularly at night, impacts on the local community and, as she said, can impact on people’s physical and mental wellbeing. Major airports with more than 50,000 movements per year are obliged under the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006 to produce noise action plans. Noise action plans act as a driver for aircraft noise management and for the mitigation that is required around airports. I am pleased to report that all major airports within scope of the regulations have now produced their noise action plans for 2024 to 2028. With the exception of the noise action plan for Manchester airport in my constituency, which was submitted later, I can confirm that those noise action plans have now been adopted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The Heathrow airport noise action plan has been published, following consultation with local stakeholders, as the hon. Lady rightly said. It is supplemented by a commitment to commission and support research, and a focus on improving the way that the airport communicates and engages with local communities. Heathrow sees that last element as pivotal in helping it to understand and address key priorities for local people. Heathrow also has a sustainability plan that covers a wide range of issues related to noise management. The airport has set a clear objective to reduce by 2030 the number of people who are sleep-disturbed and highly annoyed, compared with its baseline of 2019. The airport has been working to develop, test and finalise a new package of noise insulation, vortex protection and home relocation support, known as the quieter neighbourhood support scheme. Heathrow’s residential insulation scheme covers 100% of insulation costs up to £34,000 for homes most affected by noise.

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to the Minister for highlighting the various packages that are available for people affected by noise. As he will appreciate, a number of my constituents are in that position, yet many are finding that some of those packages are insufficient and difficult to access. Will he meet me to discuss some of those individual cases?

[Mike Kane]

I am happy to meet all individual Members who want to improve the quality of people’s lives around our ports and airports.

Heathrow uses a differential charging structure for aircraft operating at the airport. The structure encourages the use of best-in-class aircraft, imposing higher charges for noisier aircraft and lower charges for quieter ones. Heathrow encourages the use of quieter planes by adjusting the differential in night and post-midnight charges for unscheduled operations, with the aim of reducing those operations after 11.30 pm.

The Government, too, are committed to research into aviation noise, and two studies are under way. One study that has been commissioned is on the effects of aviation noise on sleep disturbance and annoyance and how they vary at different times at night. The study is a collaboration between St George’s University London, the National Centre for Social Research, Noise Consultants Ltd and the University of Pennsylvania, and is the first study of aviation noise effects on sleep disturbance in the UK for 30 years. The first stage of the aviation night noise effects—“Annie”—study involved a cross-sectional survey of 4,000 people who live near eight UK airports to assess the association between aircraft noise exposure at night and subjective assessments of sleep quality and annoyance. That stage of the study is currently going through peer review, and we expect to publish it next year. The second stage involves an observational study of individuals recruited from the survey to assess the association between aircraft noise exposure and objective sleep quality. That involves assessments of sleep disturbance and sound level measurements in participants’ bedrooms. That stage of the study is currently in the field.

Taken together, these pieces of evidence will be used to inform future policies for managing night-time aviation noise exposure and to assist with the management and mitigation of health impacts on local communities. They will also support any wider assessment of the costs and benefits of night flying. Our priority remains to deliver a high-quality, robust evidence base, and we are taking all the necessary steps to deliver that. We are now working on the basis that we will publish the full evidence base from the “Annie” study in autumn 2026.

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I am pleased to hear that there will be a proper study of the impact of aviation noise on sleep disruption, and I very much look forward to that publication. He may have missed the early part of my speech, where I asked for a much more robust study of the economic benefits of night flights. Will he comment further on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

I heard the Minister from a sedentary position call my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) a luddite when she made her point about airspace modernisation.

[Sarah Olney]

A luddite?

[Munira Wilson]

Yes, I am afraid so. The Minister is making the point that we need modernisation. I say to him respectfully that I, my hon. Friend and our constituents recognise the need for innovation and to move with technology as it changes. Of course we want to reduce carbon emissions, and we support a better Heathrow—not a bigger Heathrow—as we understand its importance to the economy, but on airspace modernisation we could still achieve some of the benefits by adopting a “do minimum” approach, gaining benefits from modernisation while not coming up with lots of new flight paths and really intensifying noise over certain areas that might not be overflown at the moment. We have seen how in other countries airspace modernisation has led to noise sewers. Will he offer reassurance to the residents of Teddington, Twickenham, the Hamptons and St Margarets that those places will not end up becoming noise sewers? Will he please commit to a “do minimum” approach and transparency on the process?