Aviation Noise

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Hannah Bardell]

I could not agree more, and that reinforces the need for an independent aviation noise association.

Before the flightpath trial started, I saw occasional stories in the press about the fact that it would take place, but there was not a great deal of information about what that meant for folk on the ground. I should declare an interest: I grew up living under one of Edinburgh airport’s current flightpaths, and I use and enjoy aircraft travel for both work and pleasure.

Almost immediately after the trial started, the local MSPs and my neighbouring MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, started to receive complaints from constituents about the noise levels. The airport had stated that Civil Aviation Authority guidelines said that until the trial was live and aircraft started using the route, it would be unable to record the noise levels. It was suggested that noise monitors would be placed at various points along the new route to capture data and information.

One example of the complaints that were made was from my constituent David Jenkins, who wrote:

“This change to the flight paths has turned our outdoor garden experience into an incessant noisy environment and recently they have been passing every few minutes and their elevation is much lower and therefore much louder, than we have experienced in the past 32 years.”

Another was from Andy Marshall, who wrote:

“Very disappointed to be advised by the CAA aircraft noise is not covered by the environmental protection act nor the noise act. It seems the airport themselves deem what level of aircraft noise is acceptable!”

By mid-September, Edinburgh airport had said that it was gathering all feedback and concerns, which the CAA would review as part of the trial. However, it is fair to say that the airport was overwhelmed with communications from constituents and simply could not cope. In my view, that was largely because the CAA guidelines and its engagement structure are not set up for modern communications or the community engagement that people expect.

As you can imagine, Mr Speaker, significant attention was given to the issue, and there was significant action. The trial was due to last six months, but it ended in December as a result of numerous complaints and direct intervention from the then Transport Minister, Derek Mackay. It is therefore clear to me that the current system of managing and mitigating aviation noise is outdated, unsuitable for modern times and in urgent need of reform. Furthermore, as recent airspace trials in Edinburgh and Gatwick have shown, there is a troubling disconnect between airports and local residents when it comes to aviation noise.

The balance at the core of today’s debate is how we turn an outdated, complex, often little understood system for managing the noise impact of aviation into an opportunity for better engagement between our vital international transport businesses and local communities.

My overall goal in highlighting this issue is to draw together our collective experience and learnings so that we can prevent future communities and airports from having the challenging and difficult experience that mine have had. I think that Edinburgh airport was doing its best to work within the CAA’s “Guidance on the Application of the Airspace Change Process”—CAP725—with which I have become increasingly familiar. It is specific published guidance on changing airspace.

Essentially, the guidance requires that any intention to make a new route permanent requires a full community consultation only when and if an airport trial is found to be a success following its completion. It is not until that point that constituents affected by the trial are entitled to take part in a consultation process. To me, the guidance and processes are more than a little out of date. In Scotland, and I am sure across wider parts of the UK, people expect and indeed welcome proper public consultation and engagement.

I know from several meetings that I have had with Edinburgh airport that it understands and accepts that there should have been greater engagement, and it is my observation that it was caught between balancing the rules and regulations of the CAA and what the local public need and want. To that end, I am pleased to say that Edinburgh airport has confirmed to me earlier today that it plans to set up its own local noise board, which will have members of the local community involved. While all the details are not yet in place, it advises me that it absolutely sees the value in doing this and will actively work with the CAA on its recent experiences and plans.

I appreciate that more passengers travel through our airports, and as a result, airports have to increase airspace capacity to cater for this growth. I care deeply about Scotland’s connectivity to other parts of the UK and the world for the growth of business and trade, as well as the huge number of people who benefit from the 8,000 jobs at Edinburgh airport. I am also mindful of the fact that air travel is generally on the increase and, to that end, I think that it would be best for business and local communities to engage positively and see this debate as an opportunity to begin that discussion.

The “Policy for the Conduct of Operational Airspace Trials” on “Consultation” states:

“Due to the short term nature of temporary airspace changes and airspace trials, it will usually not be necessary or appropriate for the airspace change sponsor to consult on their proposals or to undertake the airspace change approval process.”

It goes on to say:

“Whilst consultation may not be required the Guidance places an onus on both the sponsor and the CAA to consider the environmental impact of an operational trial and establish the level of consultation/engagement required…The CAA will confirm to the sponsor the level of engagement/consultation considered appropriate in the circumstances.”

With regard to impact studies, the policy states:

“It is accepted that some trials will have an unavoidable environmental impact; however the CAA will require trial sponsors to mitigate that impact as far as practicable and limit the scope of the trial to that which is strictly necessary commensurate with its aims”.

It means mibbes aye, mibbes naw will we have proper guidelines.

Apart from the policy’s requiring neither consultation nor an impact study up front, that raises the question of whether the CAA can be truly independent in looking at noise complaints. The CAA’s functions are wide ranging. No one suggests that it does not do a good job in many areas, but its functions include: regulating civil aviation safety; advising and assisting the Secretary of State on all civil aviation matters; determining policy for the use of the UK airspace to meet the needs of all users; economic regulation of the designated airports, and licensing of air travel organisers.

As that list suggests, the CAA’s remit is vast. I find it difficult to see how the CAA can effectively manage noise issues and maintain neutrality when balancing its other functions. In January 2013, the CAA published a literature review on aircraft noise, sleep disturbance and health impacts. It concluded that findings were

“not conclusive and are often contradictory, highlighting the practical difficulties in designing studies of this nature”.

That highlights how conflicting the information is.

Furthermore, the Airports Commission’s final report stated:

“The CAA carries out a number of functions targeted at ensuring aircraft noise is taken into account, not only within the airspace change process, but also within planning applications, and aims to improve the transparency associated with monitoring and reporting aircraft noise. However, as the Interim Report highlighted, there are still real issues to resolve around the manner in which communities are engaged in processes which impact aircraft noise (most notably the airspace change process), and in holding those involved in these processes to proper account.”

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making excellent points. On holding people to account for noise, does she agree that one benefit of being in the European Union is that we have two directives, the rather cumbersomely named D2002/30 (European Parliament, 2002a), which is devoted to air traffic noise and inspired by the “balanced approach” concept, and D2002/49 (European Parliament, 2002b), which is on environmental noise and specifying noise metrics? Is there a benefit to having European standards to which people must adhere?

[Hannah Bardell]

My hon. Friend is a great expert in this area, and I could not agree with him more. That is why we need a unified approach across the UK, and local consultative bodies.

A further interesting point—well, interesting to me and my constituents—is that flightpaths in the UK are designed and drawn up in consultation with the local airport, the CAA, and predominantly the National Air Traffic Services. As I understand—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—NATS manages airspace above 3,000 feet, and under a previous Government it was part privatised. NATS is a public-private partnership between the Airline Group, which holds 42%, NATS staff who own 5%, UK airport operator LHR Airports Limited with 4%, and the Government who hold 49%. The Airline Group comprises a number of private companies, including leading companies and airlines, and its website is open and informative. I will not list all those private companies, but some are airlines. Call me a conspiracy theorist, Mr Speaker, but I cannot help finding it a little odd first that our airspace is part privately owned, and secondly that that part privately owned company has a significant hand in designing our flightpaths. I would be interested in the Minister’s views on whether NATS will remain part public, and on whether data on the design of flightpaths and future flightpaths could be made public. Indeed, if the new noise association is set up, it will have a key role in future designs.

The Edinburgh trial last year was merely the latest in a number of instances in which local residents have felt helpless in the face of airspace change and general airport operations that have had a severe and detrimental impact on their quality of life. The Airports Commission’s July 2013 aviation noise discussion paper stated that in terms of health effects from aviation noise, the link between noise and hypertension is “fairly well” established.

Except for airports where there is direct regulation from the Secretary of State for Transport—Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted—it is for airports to decide whether and how best to control noise impacts from their operations. I do not believe that that is in keeping with the spirit of public engagement, and it could be detrimental to our other airports and their business. At the UK’s major airports the Secretary of State may prescribe “noise preferential routes” to minimise noise disturbance, but it is the responsibility of airport operators to ensure that those routes are used, and there are no statutory powers to penalise poor track-keeping. I think that people across the UK will find that unsatisfactory, and it is imperative that the UK Government, their agencies and our airports, are more open, transparent and consultative.

I am not alone in that opinion. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who sadly could not be with us this evening, is a passionate and determined advocate for his constituents, and he represents a large number of people who live under the flight path to Glasgow airport. He has been contacted by a large number of residents, many of whom have been fighting for years to get support to install sound proofing in those houses that are adversely affected, to counter the impact of noise. He advises me that those calls have not been met with the most positive of responses, and he argues that a misconception and lack of understanding lies at the heart of the matter, and that if we are fully to combat the effects of aircraft noise, the establishment of an independent aviation noise association will be an important step.

In recent years the independent Airports Commission, chaired ably by Sir Howard Davies, the Environmental Audit Committee, and others, have called on the Government to create a new independent aviation noise authority as part of their recommendations, including a levy that could be used by local households—such as those in the constituency of my hon. Friend—to spend on noise protections such as sound proofing.

The Airports Commission said:

“An independent aviation noise authority should be established with a statutory right to be consulted on flight paths and other operating procedures. The authority should be given statutory consultee status and a formal role in monitoring and quality assuring all processes and functions which have an impact on aircraft noise, and in advising central and local Government and the CAA on such issues.”