Aviation Strategy

Written evidence from Mr Basil Hutton (AS 17)

I am a retired headmaster. I was a school head for 20 years, served on the Board of Studies of the Education Departments of Queens University Belfast and Stranmillis and St Mary’s Colleges of Education. I taught part-time on their undergraduate and post-graduate courses. I was awarded the M.B.E. for services to education in 2000. I am a member of Stranmillis Residents Association.

1 My main concern with the Policy Document lies in the question posed by your Committee in paragraph 3A:" Are the Government’s proposals to manage the impact of aviation on the local environment sufficient, particularly in terms of reducing the impact of noise on the local residents"

2 I was very disappointed with the direction and thrust of the Draft Aviation Policy framework. I was astonished to find that only the 3 main London Airports have been designated for noise management purposes. In the case of our own local noise polluter, George Best Belfast City Airport, it is even more astonishing. The document talks about the impact of noise at 57db at Gatwick and Stansted where together, only 4,200 people are affected, compared to the 11,500 similarly affected at GBBCA. Noise management is to be left to "better engagement" between airports and local communities, laissez-faire waffle at its woolliest. Governments should look after the overall welfare of its voters, but our Government has a completely cavalier attitude to its electors when it comes to aviation. Aviation seems to be cocooned in a world of its own and seems to operate in an unrestricted environment which is granted to no other industry.

3 Almost proudly the document admits that Heathrow’s environmental impact exceeds the combined impact of all the other hub airports in Western Europe! It is also worth noting that it has been voted the third worst airport in the world on CNNGo’s website.This should tell anyone that there is something seriously wrong with our current airport strategy.

4 Government must come to terms with the environmental impact of aviation and ensure that, as in Australia, the pain is fairly shared amongst as many people as possible, particularly those who preach about the evils of NIMBYism. The Government seems to have no will to take on the aviation industry and its political cowardice is cloaked in the weasel phrase "consistent with the Governments location policy" There is no policy, apart from a policy to do nothing. All other potential polluters, water, sewage, waste disposal, the oil and gas industries, sea and bathing water quality and so on, are all subject to strict regulation and centralised planning. Where is the control here? I don’t think that this document in its present form and scope will supply it.

I have now appended some comments and suggestions on the framework document.

Do you think that the government should map noise exposure around the designated airports to a lower level than 57dbs?

5 Noise levels should be mapped by government at all commercial airports and not just the 3 designated ones. They should be mapped according to the World Health Organisation’s recommendations at 40db, 50db and 55dd. The 2009 WHO survey in particular gives excellent guidance on what constitutes tolerable levels of noise at different times of the day and in different situations.

Health impacts of aircraft noise

6 The impact of aircraft noise has been well documented most notably in the HYENA study which showed a significant link between aircraft noise and hypertension. No government worthy of the name and with an ounce of empathy for their citizens who live under a flight path should ignore this. There are very many other studies showing the malign effects of aircraft noise and these cannot be ignored or wished away.

Educational impact of aircraft noise

7 All research in this area consistently shows a strong link between aircraft noise and underachievement.The most recent study that I have seen, the 2010 CAA report concludes that it affects memory, concentration, comprehension and reading ability, four good reasons for people to be NIMBYS.

Noise envelopes and the Government

8 These should be set up, monitored and regulated centrally by government. I don’t believe that airports can or should do this themselves. Their business is making money for their owners and they are not greatly concerned either with their environmental impact or the welfare of the people who live under a flight path. If all other sources of pollution are centrally controlled why should airports be allowed to be basically self-regulating.

Government, noise impact and penalties

9 Government should design and implement a robust system of noise regulation which would address this problem properly and which had appropriate penalties, especially for breaches of the night time curfew.

Airport compensation schemes

10 Airport should be required to offer compensation for proper sound insulation of homes where the noise level is greater than the WHO recommended maximum of 50db. Compensation should also be paid for loss of value to houses that are under a flight path.The principal that the polluter must pay is paramount.

Conclusion

11 Naturally enough my main interest in the Policy Document lies in how it could affect our own situation in Northern Ireland. The lack of an overall aviation is most starkly illustrated in how the two Belfast airports compete to the detriment of both and to the detriment of Northern Ireland business. We have two half airports, neither with decent road or rail links to the the east or west of the country. GBBCA in particular is already one of the noisiest in the UK and why it has been allowed to expand to the detriment of the only airport with the potential to fulfil all of the country’s aviation needs, Belfast International, is a disgrace and an indictment of our local politicians. Compared to the shiny new airports I have seen, especially in South East Asia, ours are antiquated and shabby, with little or no IT connectivity. Our problems are compounded as Dublin Airport is less than 2 hours away for most of Northern Ireland and where APD is minimal. Governments must address not only noise but the unnecessary duplication of routes such as we have in Northern Ireland. This results in avoidable greenhouse gas emissions and the flying of half -full aircraft into the same airports.

12 My wife and I recently returned from an extended holiday in South-East Asia. We flew into Kuala Lumpur (pop 7 million, one airport) on to Hanoi (pop6 million one airport) on to Hue (pop 2 million one airport) next to Saigon (pop 12 million one airport) and finally to Bangkok (pop 7 million one airport). We then flew home to Belfast (pop 500,000 two airports)

Malaysia Vietnam and Thailand have one common pressing need and that is to secure a large and growing tourist business. They are doing this by concentrating their resources on building large modern airports with excellent road and rail links. Comfortable seating and cheap or free Wi-Fi and internet facilities are the norm. We in Northern Ireland need one International airport operating 24 hours a day with sufficient capacity to cater for any potential increase in traffic for the foreseeable future. It needs good road and rail links both to the east and west of Northern Ireland. The only airport that can satisfy these criteria is Belfast International and all future development should be based there.

14 October 2012