Aviation Noise — House of Commons, 2016-05-18
Topic: Mixed Topics
Hannah Mary Bardell (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): 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."