Aviation Strategy

Written evidence from Mr Joe Watson (AS 32)

Response to Governments Draft Aviation Document

I am extremely disappointed with the Draft Aviation Policy Framework. It is quite wrong that the Government should propose that the only real mechanism for the regulation of the noise pollution caused by non-designated airports in the UK – which form the vast majority of the UK’s airports – should be better engagement between airports and local communities.

It is inconceivable that the G overnment would permit the sole mechanism for the regulation of air or water pollution, or pollution from waste, to be left to a laissez faire system of "better engagement" between the polluting company or organisation in question and the local community. These forms of pollution are all subject to strict controls which are monitored and policed closely by the statutory environmental agencies in each of the UK territories.

Moreover nearly all other forms of noise pollution are subject to stricter controls through the statutory powers exercised by local authorities.

I believe that the proposals set out in the Draft Aviation Policy Framework fall far short of what is required to ensure that all airports in the UK minimise the noise pollution which they produce. The adverse impacts of aircraft noise on health, education and quality of life are well established. The DfT needs to take decisive action to produce the better balance which it claims it seeks between the commercial interests of the aviation sector and its adverse impacts on local communities.

In particular, I would like to see the following measures:

· Robust and ongoing mapping, monitoring and regulation of noise pollution caused by the all the UK’s commercial airports – carried out by the Department for Transport (DfT) (and devolved administrations, where applicable), or by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), rather than by the airports themselves

· Both the monitoring and the noise regulations must properly reflect the true impact of aircraft noise on health, education and quality of life, as evidenced in the substantive relevant research, and must reflect best practice as set out by the World Health Organisation in its relevant guidance

· The Government should commit itself to a specific reduction in the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise over the next 10 years – I suggest a 10% reduction

· Airports should be required to reduce the level and frequency of aircraft noise within the areas which are significantly affected by noise – priority should be attached to achieving this objective at the airports affecting the largest populations, and at those which affect large populations, and also duplicate the services of an airport nearby. The noise levels that emanate from George Best City Airport affects my sleep, I don’t get enough which leads to sleep deprivation. I can’t open my windows during the summer as the noise levels throughout the morning, afternoon and evenings is extremely noisy and impacts on the quality of life for me, my family and local residents. I am also frightened in relation to the adverse impact it may have on the future health of my family and local residents in general. It affects my television reception and I have to stop talking when using the phone when a plane is overhead. It disrupts conversations with my neighbours and affects any social activities that I organise in my garden. I used to take my young grandchildren to my local Victoria Park a gem of an oasis in the heart of east Belfast. However, I had to cease this social and family outing as my grandchildren where petrified from the noise emanating from the aircraft. Local residents do not have to be subjected to this intrusion and daily disruption of their family lives. There is an International Airport less than 30 minutes’ drive away which is better placed and equipped to handle European/International flights.

· No further growth should be permitted at airports which affect large populations in terms of noise, and which duplicate the services of an airport nearby, unless the airport operator in question can prove that any planned growth will not result in an increase in noise pollution

· All airports whose noise pollution affects significant populations (and/or any schools) should be required to meet specified targets for reducing those levels of noise over a five year period – there should be serious penalties for airport operators which do not meet these targets.

· The Government should make it clear in its Aviation Framework that it is abandoning its outdated guidance stating that the 57 dB LAeq,16h contour marks the approximate onset of significant annoyance, and should introduce more sophisticated guidance which better reflects the considerable body of recent international research in this regard, and which properly reflects international research on health and education impacts of aircraft noise

· The Government should either refine the current system of air passenger duty so that a higher rate is levied on those flights having the most serious adverse noise impact, or it should use its existing powers to enforce airports to use differential landing fees to reflect the noise impacts of flights

· At airports where aircraft noise affects a significant number of people (and/or affects schools significantly), any noise envelope should only be used as a device to ensure that the level and frequency of aircraft noise pollution does not get worse and/or is reduced over time – it should not be used as a device to permit any increase in the amount or frequency of noise at such airports

· The Government should give serious consideration to the results of the EU-sponsored MIME study, which developed a model of tradeable noise permits for airports, with a view to its possible introduction in the UK

· The Government should require airports to provide comprehensive and robust effective insulation (not just double or triple glazing) to all homes seriously impacted by aircraft noise and not only those at 63 LAeq 16h.

· I support an enhanced noise regulation role for the CAA – but it must have a consistent, proactive and tough regulatory and enforcement role, similar to the Environment Agency

· Belfast International Airport should be earmarked as the regional gateway airport for Northern Ireland at which any further expansion, particularly of international routes, should be focused, if such expansion is deemed desirable.

17 October 2012