Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL]

Lord Randall of Uxbridge Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 21st January 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge]

17: Before Clause 18, insert the following new Clause—
“Prohibiting aircraft noise over designated sites
Civil aviation aircraft flying below 7,000 feet over landscapes designated as National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are prohibited, except—(a) any civil aviation aircraft landing at or taking off from civil airports or airfields, and(b) civil aviation aircraft flying below 7,000 feet for safety reasons.”

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I start by apologising to noble Lords and my noble friend the Minister, as I was unable to take part at Second Reading or in Committee. I have, of course, read the Hansard reports of both previous stages.

In moving Amendment 17, standing in my name, let me say at the outset that I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division, and I can see the potential problems if my amendment was actually inserted into the Bill. Nevertheless, I feel the issue merits a short debate.

Aircraft noise caused by low-flying aircraft, particularly if it is frequent, is a major disruption, and, indeed, can be a health issue. Those who live near airports and aerodromes get used to it—not that they can ever ignore it. However, my concern, one that is shared by many who enjoy the pleasures and tranquillity of our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, is that, from time to time, that very peace and quiet is shattered by excessive aircraft noise. This amendment would prohibit civil aviation aircraft flying below 7,000 feet over landscapes designated as national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty, except for any civil aviation aircraft landing at or taking off from civil airports or airfields and civil aviation aircraft flying below 7,000 feet for safety reasons. I have chosen 7,000 feet because that is the point at which noise is considered by the CAA to be a pertinent consideration when designing flight paths.

My honourable friend Mr Philip Dunne, the chair of the Environmental Audit Select Committee in the other place, has taken a keen interest in this matter and has asked several Parliamentary Questions exploring the issue. In March last year, he asked

“what provisions are included in the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill … to protect national parks and AONBs from aircraft noise.”

In reply, my honourable friend the Minister, Kelly Tolhurst, said:

“The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to direct an airport, air navigation service provider or another body to take forward an airspace change that is considered necessary for the delivery of the Civil Aviation Authority’s … Airspace Modernisation Strategy.


Any Airspace Change Proposals that are taken forward as a result will be covered by the department’s existing Air Navigation Guidance which is reflected in the CAA’s airspace change process. The guidance for this process states that, where practicable, it is desirable that airspace routes below 7,000 feet should seek to avoid flying over Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty … and National Parks.”


That Answer states “where practicable” and “it is desirable”, but I am afraid that that sounds a little weak to me.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have been able to demonstrate to my noble friend that AONBs and national parks are already considered as part of the airspace change process—as he pointed out—and it is the case that the Government are cognisant of AONBs and national parks and how they might feed into the airspace change process. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I thank other noble Lords for joining in on this short but important debate: the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, hit on the point that has not, perhaps, been completely answered by my noble friend, which is that there has seemingly been a change in overflying at lower heights. It is something that people notice. I live near Heathrow. We do not get much overflying, but we did notice last year, before the pandemic, that there seemed to be a change in patterns. My amendment would have tried to stop not overflying per se but flying below 7,000 feet.

My other concern is the fact that there is no way of registering such low flying and no sanctions that can be applied to an aeroplane that, for whatever reason, flies lower than it should. Clearly, there might be a safety issue or whatever, and I also take the point about take-off and landing, but I do not think that those are the cases that people complain about.

Having listened to the previous debate, as someone with a degree in Serbo-Croat I do not think that I could match the academic qualities of my noble friend, and I would certainly not dream of teaching her to suck eggs. I suggest, however, that when this goes to the other place there will be Members there whose constituents will contact them, and those Members may want answers to some of those questions. I say that as someone who knows that this is the sort of thing that really gets constituents going.

I will leave it at that. I am grateful for my noble friend’s answer. It was not quite as full as I had hoped for, but I am never really disappointed by her answers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.