BALANCING ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES
IN DEVELOPING AIRSPACE POLICY
145. The CAA explained that, in keeping with its
environmental objectives, it made changes to airspace arrangements
only after consultation and only where it was clear that an overall
environmental benefit would accrue or where airspace management
considerations and the overriding need for safety allowed for
no practical alternative. It informed us that it had developed
and published an Airspace Change Process which allowed for consultation
on proposals with representatives of airspace users, aerodrome
operators and providers of air traffic services and other bodies
and individuals as appropriate. It said that, in addition, guidance
was given on the representative bodies that must be consulted
in respect to the environmental impacts of the change.[224]
146. Several witnesses argued that there was an uneven
approach to the CAA's airspace change consultations, however.
Leicestershire County Council told us that a consultation in 2004
on airspace changes around East Midlands Airport had been poorly
carried out and did not include a number of local authorities,
including Leicestershire. It said that, despite the CAA giving
its approval to the change in July 2004, the airport itself decided
to undertake consultations again, following representations by
the local authorities. The County Council recommended that the
Government should ensure that local authorities affected by airports
and their activities became "statutory consultees" in
relation to air space changes.[225]
In addition, Lonek Wojtulewicz of the County Council argued that
the CAA should be more transparent and explicit in its reasoning
for its airspace change decisions.[226]
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) also noted a number
of imbalances, and argued that the CAA needed to demonstrate its
independence from the airlines and other users if it was to "secure
confidence amongst the public in its consultation processes."[227]
147. The CPRE was concerned that the CAA's environmental
responsibilities appeared to be secondary to its other non-safety
objectives. It argued that, because the CAA had been created at
a time when the concept of sustainable development had not been
invented, it had been set up to be "primarily concerned with
the regulation of airspace in order to address the needs of airspace
users."[228] It
pointed out that none of the CAA's 12 directors had an environmental
remit and it argued that the CAA's financial reliance on those
it regulated, and therefore on the physical movement of aircraft
and passengers, risked generating a conflict of interest with
its environmental responsibilities. It highlighted a statement
in the CAA's Annual Report 2005 welcoming sustained growth
in key activity measures as an example of such a conflict.[229]
148. In addition to balancing the needs of airspace
capacity and the environmental impact of aviation nationally,
it was evident that the CAA faced a difficult task in balancing
the concerns of different groups at the local level. In relation
to the airspace changes at East Midlands Airport, for instance,
Mr Wojtulewicz accepted that the eventual changes had led to an
overall reduction in the number of people affected by aircraft
noise in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire, but he
was unhappy that the amount of controlled airspace over Leicestershire
had doubled.[230] The
CPRE explained that while it was "unacceptable" to locate
the increasing environmental impact of aviation in over-populated
areas, any move to spread it out over rural areas risked spoiling
the tranquillity of the countryside—one of its defining
characteristics.[231]
149. Paul Hamblin of the CPRE told us that technological
improvements and changes to flight paths could produce simultaneous
safety, economic and environmental benefits, but that the expansionary
message of the Government's Air Transport White Paper meant that
the CAA faced real problems in trying to achieve benefits in all
three areas. Despite this, Mr Hamblin felt it was better to attempt
to resolve those conflicts within the CAA rather than establish
a separate body to deal with environmental regulation. Mr Wojtulewicz
concurred, arguing that the creation of a separate body would
lead to confusion as to who the ultimate arbiter was with regards
to airspace changes.[232]
Other witnesses argued, however, that sufficient account was already
taken of environmental issues during airspace change considerations.
Andrew Cahn of British Airways claimed that environmental issues
were taken very seriously and that the approach taken by the CAA
to airspace regulation was unresponsive to the needs of the market
and too slow and cumbersome, with some changes taking four or
five years to be approved.[233]
150. The CAA accepted that balancing the public's
desire to fly and airlines' willingness to meet the demand with
the impact on the environment was a challenge, but it argued that
its Airspace Change Process gave proper regard to the environmental
impact of the change. It explained that the Guidance on Environmental
Objectives was due for review and said that it wished to see:
"[…] greater clarity in the revised Guidance
so that proposers of airspace changes and those that are affected,
both in the air and on the ground, are clear about the balance
to be struck between commercial and public benefit and environmental
impact."[234]
151. The Minister accepted that there was a tension
between the CAA's roles of safety, economic and environmental
regulator. She said that there was "an economic benefit to
aviation", "an absolute bedrock expectation that safety
is paramount" and "a growing and real and serious concern
about the environmental impacts of aviation" which had to
be addressed.[235]
She argued that those areas could not always be reconciled to
everybody's satisfaction, but said that all three of them had
to be kept in a proper balance over time.[236]
152. In exercising its air navigation functions,
it is clear that the CAA faces competing pressures in terms of
safety, economic and environmental considerations. It
is of paramount importance that the CAA should give top priority
at all times to matters of safety. The
increasing constraints placed by environmental limits on the ability
of the UK aviation market to grow mean that the CAA must increasingly
have regard for the concerns of those affected by the environmental
impact of aviation. We
recommend that, as a minimum, the CAA be required to consult more
widely, more openly and at an earlier stage of the process with
local authorities, interest groups and individuals concerned about
the environmental impact of airspace changes. We recommend further
that the CAA should be required to make clear the reasons for
its decisions as a matter of course. We
recognise that any extension in the scope of the CAA's consultation
might lead to the airspace change process becoming longer, but
we believe that it is vital that those affected by the negative
environmental impact of aviation should be given the right to
have their opinions heard.
SCOPE FOR EXTENDING THE CAA'S ENVIRONMENTAL
REMIT
153. A number of witnesses suggested that the CAA's
environmental remit would need extending over the coming years.
Professor Callum Thomas argued that the extent to which environmental
issues were going to drive the industry in 20 years' time meant
that this was an area which was going to have a far greater influence
than it had in the past. He said that the industry would increasingly
need to consider trade-offs between economic benefits and environmental
costs.[237] Councillor
Ruth Cadbury of Hounslow Borough Council argued that the CAA should
have its remit extended to include the impact of aviation on the
wider population, particularly those living next to airports.
More specifically, the Borough Council argued that the CAA should
have more responsibility, including the ability to set mitigation
criteria and targets for airlines and airports, and impose sanctions
on those failing to meet them.[238]
154. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)
argued that the remit of the CAA needed to be re-examined in the
light of the Government's Sustainable Development Strategy, with
the CAA being given a statutory duty to promote environmentally
sustainable development.[239]
The CPRE raised a number of areas in which it felt the work of
the CAA was not currently comprehensive enough. For example, it
told us it felt that the UK lacked a strategic overview of the
consequences of growth for airspace management, arguing that changes
to the height and location of flight paths and stacking areas
were made on a piecemeal basis, preventing a proper assessment
of their cumulative impact. In addition, it argued that the CAA
did not seem to be in a position to question the desirability
or otherwise of meeting air traffic forecasts, and that its actions
were therefore "quickly relegated to mitigating for environmental
damage rather than avoiding it in the first place."[240]
155. By contrast, David Starkie of Case Associates
argued that the CAA should not get "heavily involved"
in environmental matters because standards in relation to noise
and emissions were set at the international level and therefore
were better regulated from that perspective, while local level
environmental issues were better handled at a sub-national level.[241]
156. The CAA said that it was "broadly content"
with the balance between its obligations and did not see the need
for further statutory duties.[242]
It told us that increasing public awareness of the impact of aviation
and a willingness to voice concerns had made it "almost impossible"
to reach a consensus in recent years, but it contended that the
Government's sustainable development objectives would be achieved,
provided the CAA operated in accordance with its statutory duties.[243]
In response to the accusation that it made changes to the height
and location of flight paths and stacking areas on a piecemeal
basis, the CAA contended that air traffic controllers were able
to use the full lateral and vertical extent of controlled airspace
for the purpose of "achieving the most efficient and expeditious
flow of traffic", and that such use would vary according
to operational circumstances such as weather, volume of traffic
and landing and take-off direction.[244]
157. To
assist the CAA in giving proper consideration to environmental
concerns, we recommend that the Government amend its Guidance
on Economic Objectives to make it clear to the CAA
and other stakeholders what balance it expects to be struck between
commercial and public benefit and environmental impact.
219 Ev 156, paras 2.1-2.3 Back
220
Air Transport Act 2000, Section 70 Back
221
Local Government and the Regions, Guidance to the Civil Aviation
Authority on environmental objectives relating to the exercise
of its air navigation functions, January 2002, para 3 Back
222
Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, The
Civil Aviation Authority (Air Navigation) Directions 2001,
March 2001; Department for Transport, Local Government and the
Regions, Guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority on environmental
objectives relating to the exercise of its air navigation functions,
January 2002 Back
223
Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Guidance
to the Civil Aviation Authority on environmental objectives relating
to the exercise of its air navigation functions, January 2002,
para 9 Back
224
Ev 1, para 45; Civil Aviation Authority, CAP 725, Airspace
Change Process Guidance, May 2004 Back
225
Ev 176, paras 2, 6 Back
226
Q 551 Back
227
Ev 174, para 14 Back
228
Ev 174, para 1 Back
229
Ev 174, para 4; Civil Aviation Authority, Annual Report &
Accounts 2005, June 2005, p16 Back
230
Qq 561-566 Back
231
Qq 567-573 Back
232
Qq 538-540, 543 Back
233
Q 357, 360; see also Ev 99, paras 3.2-3.3 Back
234
Ev 1, para 97; Ev 60, para 18 Back
235
Q 676 Back
236
ibid. Back
237
Q 410; see also Q 413 Back
238
Q 534; Ev 176, paras 1.3, 3.4 Back
239
Ev 174, paras 2, 5 Back
240
Ev 174, paras 6-7 Back
241
Q 416 Back
242
Ev 39, Q 29 Back
243
Ev 1, para 97 Back
244
Ev 39, Q 30 Back
