31May 2016
Robert Goodwill MP
Minister of State
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 4DR
Dear Minister
AIRSPACE AND AVIATION NOISE POLICY
We understand you are considering advice from your officials on a range of aviation policy matters and institutions, following the focus group meetings held by the Department in March.
We are writing to let you have our views on those areas. We believe your policy review is an important opportunity to begin a much-needed modernization of aviation policy as it impacts communities, and of the way the industry is overseen and regulated. The Government needs to bring forward a series of bold proposals; very significant change is required to create an environment in which there can be constructive dialogue between the industry, policy makers and communities on airspace modernization.
This letter is not about new runways but, since that is a decision the Government has said it will make soon, we wish to put on record that any additional runway capacity, whether at Heathrow, Gatwick or elsewhere, would make the problems our communities suffer from, some of which are described in this letter, far worse.
Airspace and Noise Engagement Group
The ANEG proposed by your officials in the March focus groups is a modest step in the right direction but does not adequately address the need for communities to be fully involved in the development of aviation policy and in the industry’s institutions. We made a series of proposals for improved engagement in our letter to you of 13 November 2015 and continue to believe those are the right measures to take. We have had no response to those proposals. We hope you will consider them seriously and act to put in place structures that ensure communities’ views are properly considered in all relevant parts of government and in the industry’s regulation.
Independent Aviation Noise Authority
Our groups support the proposals made by the Airports Commission for a strong, independent Aviation Noise Authority. UK aviation currently suffers from a serious institutional gap. The CAA believes that its principal duty, after safety, is to secure the maximum number of aircraft movements. It is therefore, effectively, a champion for the industry. But there is noorganisationor body with an explicit remit and authority to achieve a long-term, sustained reduction in aviation noise,and the health impacts it causes,and for promoting, delivering and enforcing individual initiatives in pursuit of that goal. The result is that sensible initiatives to reduce noise are pursued only on a haphazard basis,or not at all, by an industry that has little incentive to do so and a regulator with insufficient powers. The IANA should fill that institutional gap. It must be properly empowered to do so, and to act as an ombudsman on behalf of impacted residents and communities.
We would be very concerned if the Commissions’ proposals were substantially watered down,particularly if the new body did not possess strong powers to take and enforce decisions, to fine the industry for breaches and ultimately to revoke licenses, or recommend their revocation, for repeated noise offences.
In addition to its powers, the composition and leadership of any new body are critical. There must be substantial representation for communities that are impacted by aviation, and the chair must be someone in whom we can have confidence. We request that youinvolve communitiesin scoping the role of the chair and in the selection process.
More broadly UK aviation regulation is many decades out of date and badly needs reform: what worked when BAA was state owned and NATS was part of the CAA is clearly not fit for purpose now. Issues of particular concern include the complete absence of noise in NATS' regulatory framework and the arrangements under which airports are invited to fine their own customers on noise abatement matters. Airports, particularly return-maximizing, foreign-owned, airports, cannot seriously be expected to act as regulators of UK aviation noise: it's difficult to imagine a morefundamental conflict of interest and the government shouldbeembarrassed this has been allowed to continue for so long. We ask that you bring forward substantive reforms of the industry’s regulatory structures to address these points.
Role of the Secretary of State
We were surprised that your officials were consulting informally on the possibility of removing the Secretary of State’s role in airspace changes. As long as the sector’s regulatory arrangements, as described above, prioritise the industry’s objectives and favour traffic (and therefore noise) increases, it is essential that some form of democratic control of airspace changes, via the Secretary of State,be retained.
Indeed we would go well beyond that: we would like to see the Secretary of State use the range of powers available to him, including to direct the industry on environmental matters, far more energetically to drive the change the industry has failed to implement. Communities would welcome an interventionist Secretary of State who is willing to champion community issues with the industry.
Permanent and planned redistribution of air traffic
We support proposals for air navigation service providers to be required to consult on proposals to amend their air traffic procedures when they will result in the permanent and planned redistribution of air traffic, and for the CAA to be given the power to ensure that ANSPs do consult appropriately on all such proposals. Consultation should be both pre and post change, so that communities can comment on proposals and then on changes as they actually affect them. We also agree that the focus in such consultations should be on the noise and health effects of any such change. We believe there should be consultation on anychange thatcould increase noise for any community and ask you to ensure that this is clearly spelled out to the industry and the CAA. In addition to future changes in air traffic procedures there should be a mechanism whereby recent changes made without consultation can be reviewed and potentially reversed.
Single / multiple routes
Our letter to you of 13 November 2015 set out our views on aircraft concentration. We continue to believe that concentration should never be the government's preferred policy. We ask you to set out a clear policy preference for the widest possible dispersal of aircraft whether achieved by the random tendencies of vectoring or, in the future, through the use of multiple PBN tracks. We agree that decisions on flight paths should be considered against local circumstances in all cases, and we recognise that concentration may be the most pragmatic outcome in some specificlocal situations. However, concentration should only be implemented when:
- a full assessmenthas beencarriedout of the effects on allpotentially impactedcommunities takingaccount, inter alia,of ambient noise in their respective environmentsandthe marginal disutility of noise fromconcentratedaircraft;
- consultation on routes has been carried out, based on specifically identified maps, showing the precise path in relation to conurbations, villages, heritage sites, and other sensitive assets, such as hospitals and schools; and
- all persons and communitiesdisproportionatelyimpacted by aircraft noise (i.e. over whom / whichit is proposed that aircraft should be concentrated) are fully compensated on a basis agreed with communities.
Compensation
Aviation compensation arrangements need fundamental reform. For many years the industry has enjoyed exceptionally light touch compensation obligations compared to the impacts it has. Basic polluter pays principles are ignored and the government’s Aviation Policy Framework principle that the benefits of growth should be shared between the industry and communities has no practical effect.
It cannot be right that offshore investment and Sovereign Wealth funds (who in most cases pay no tax on their investments) are able to make very substantial returns out of UK airportsbut are not required to compensate UK citizens for the damage and value destruction they cause.
We ask you to establish a basic principle that the industry should be required to compensate communities for all costs it imposes on them whether as a result of new physical infrastructure development or new or altered flight paths. We are happy to engage with your officials and the industry on these arrangements, drawing on the detailed paper we submitted last year.
Noise preferential routes
We would be willing to consider the replacement of noise preferential routes with an information-based approach provided there was no possibility of communities being detrimentally impacted as a consequence. To ensure that was the case the Government should first require airports to record and agree the noise baseline for each community (not just those at designated airports) so any proposed future changes can be accurately modelled and measured. There should be very clear rules for how many SIDs there can be, the distance between them, how frequently each SID can be used, how quickly aircraft should reach the minimum height along the SID and their rate of ascent up to 10,000’.
Noise measurement
Underpinning several of these issues is the outdated way in which government and the industry measure aircraft noise and the inappropriate metrics used to indicate the onset of significant community impact. The Airports Commission’s reports, and your department’s focus groups,made clear that the current 57dBLAeq methodology is no longer appropriate or acceptable. It should be replaced by a wider suite of noise metrics together with a new definition of the point at which there is serious impact on communities. These will need to be consulted on, but should take account of the number of noise events and the noise shadow created by aircraft.
We would welcome an opportunity to discuss these points with you.
Yours sincerely
On behalf of:
Aircraft Noise 3 Villages (AN3V)
Aviation Communities Forum
Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions (CAGNE)
Edinburgh Airport Watch (formerly SEAT, Stop Edinburgh Airspace trial)
Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC)
Gatwick Obviously Not (GON)
Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (HACAN)
Plane Wrong
Pulborough Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions (PAGNE)
Residents Against Aircraft Noise (RAAN)
Richmond Heathrow Campaign
Speldhurst Against Gatwick
Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE)
Teddington Action Group (TAG)
Tunbridge Wells Anti Aircraft Noise Group (TWAANG)
CC:
Patrick McLoughlin MP, Secretary of State for Transport
Louise Ellman MP, Chair, Transport Select Committee
Dame Deidre Hutton, Chair, Civil Aviation Authority
Andrew Haines Esq, Chief Executive, Civil Aviation Authority
Paul Golby, Chairman, NATS Limited
Martin Rolfe Esq, Chief Executive, NATS Limited
1