|
M-A-G MACC INFO WIGGINS TDC MP's LINKS NEW OOP's
If you want to make comments or find out more
about the Manston Airport Group, email on |
|
Department for Control of Noise
from Civil Aircraft December 2003 Department for Transport © Crown Copyright, 2003 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title specified. For any other use of this material please apply for a Click Use Licence to reproduce value-added material at www.hmso.gov.uk/copyright/licences/click-use-home.htm, or by writing to The Licensing Division, HMSO, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax: 01603 723000, or e-mail hmsolicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk. To order further copies contact: December 2003 Contents
Introduction In July 2000 the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued a consultation paper about Control of noise from civil aircraft, (1) which invited comments on proposals to improve measures to tackle operational aircraft noise. 1 Consultation Paper: Control of Noise from Civil Aircraft, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, July 2000.Nearly 600 responses to the consultation were received and in March 2002 the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions issued a Summary of Responses. 2 This paper sets out the Government’s conclusions. We have not in this document duplicated the comprehensive summary of responses, although we have commented on the broad issues raised as part of that process when explaining the reasoning behind our conclusions. 2 Summary of Responses to Control of Noise from Civil Aircraft, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, March 2002. Terminology The terms ‘aerodrome’ 3 and ‘airport’ 4 are used largely interchangeably throughout this document. The context will make it clear when a limited selection of aerodromes is referred to. ‘The 1982 Act’ means the Civil Aviation Act
1982. 3 ‘Aerodrome’ is defined in s105 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 as "any area of land or water designed, equipped, set apart or commonly used for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft and includes any area or space, whether on the ground on the roof of a building or elsewhere, which is designed, equipped or set apart for affording facilities for the landing and departure of aircraft capable of descending or climbing vertically". The term ‘airport’, in legal parlance, has a similarly broad meaning, also specifically encompassing the buildings and facilities on the aerodrome site. Aerodromes require a CAA licence if carriage of passengers for hire and/or pilot training is to be conducted. There are currently some 145 licensed aerodromes. 4 Defined in section 82 of the Airports Act 1986 as ‘means the aggregate of the land, buildings and works comprised in an aerodrome within the meaning of the 1982 Act’. Overview On broad policy direction, responses on the whole tended to divide along expected lines. ‘Industry’ interests tended to be wary of greater local government involvement in aerodrome regulation, while ‘environmental and amenity’ interests mostly favoured greater regulation. Some offered the view that more stringent regulation should be applied, that a new regulatory body should be established, and/or that the proposed new power of designation (to allow the Secretary of State to direct an aerodrome to prepare a noise amelioration scheme) should become the rule rather than the exception. Some respondents reminded the Department of the economic and social benefits generated by local aerodromes, and in particular of their important role in the training of pilots. Many of those responding as local residents, or on behalf of amenity groups, also acknowledged the benefits of general aviation, although there were also those who tended to regard private flying as a frivolous or selfish activity; or otherwise thought that the disbenefits outweighed the benefits. We are satisfied that general aviation does, in general, contribute significant benefits to the local and (in aggregate) national economies. We are, nevertheless, confirmed in the view that those responsible for operating aerodromes should be responsible for keeping the noise from their activities to a minimum, and should be prepared to incur reasonable costs where necessary in order to do so. This approach fits with the ‘polluter pays’ principle. There was a measure of support from some respondents, both ‘industry’ and ‘environmental and amenity interests’ for a central regulatory body, such as the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority), or DETR (now DfT) itself, performing the functions that the consultation proposed for the aerodrome and/or local authority – in the agreement and enforcement of noise amelioration schemes (questions 4, 7, 8, 11 and 13). They argued that it would ensure both technical expertise and safety, maintain a degree of standardisation or that commercial self-interest were barriers against effective self regulation. In some cases, they amounted to advocacy of retaining section 5 of the 1982 Act and specifying large numbers of aerodromes under that power; or, implicitly or explicitly, of designating large numbers for direct regulation under section 78 of the 1982 Act. We have carefully considered the case for a central regulatory body to perform these functions or conferring duties upon an existing entity such as the CAA or, for example, the Environment Agency or even a completely new body. However, aerodromes vary enormously in their size and type of operations and in their local circumstances, including the number and disposition of near neighbours. The policy of successive Governments has been that local environmental issues are best resolved at the local level wherever possible. This means maintaining an appropriate balance between the legitimate rights of aerodromes and aircraft operators, and the rights and interests of people in the communities disturbed by aircraft noise. The preference for local solutions to aircraft noise issues has, we believe, generally proved successful. To require or create a central regulatory body to take on this role would be counter to this longstanding policy and would have introduced an additional layer of central bureaucracy without, we have concluded, being likely to improve the regulation and management of aircraft noise. We proposed providing aerodromes with greater means to regulate flying behaviour, a proposal which met with general assent. This will be an enabling and clarifying power, to strengthen the confidence of aerodrome managements in making and enforcing firm rules to control noise, and to be used if there is a need to do more to control aircraft noise at a particular aerodrome. Where existing arrangements are working satisfactorily, the expectation will be that such arrangements will carry on much as before. New enabling power for aerodromes to establish and enforce noise control arrangements Question 1 We propose to do so, when Parliamentary time allows. Apart from the special circumstances of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, 5 long-held Government policy is that aircraft noise problems are best resolved locally. The aircraft operator and the owner or manager of the land or airfield from which aircraft are being flown are expected to take all practical steps to ensure that disturbance to those living in the surrounding area is kept to a minimum. 5 which are designated under section 80 for the purposes of section 78 Civil Aviation Act 1982. In our consultation paper we explained that any aerodrome can prepare a reasonable noise amelioration scheme restricted to activities within its boundary, using byelaws 6 (if necessary) or other rights and powers to underpin it. 7 We also explained that the larger aerodromes have been able to conduct monitoring and, with air traffic control (ATC)8 co-operation, track monitoring outside their boundaries. Noise amelioration measures may be published in the AIP 9 and/or in the appropriate Manual of Air Traffic Services, used by controllers and where applicable translated into ATC instructions. Aerodromes may also make adherence to noise rules part of their conditions of use, with sanctions for non-adherence. 6 Section 63 of the Airports Act 1986 provides
for the Secretary of State to approve byelaws to enable individual aerodromes to
regulate the use and operation of the aerodrome, including the mitigation of
noise. Although we continue to believe that the emphasis on local resolution of problems to mirror local circumstances is the right one – and that this works well in the majority of cases – there have been concerns that aerodromes’ existing powers may fall short of what is required for the fullest range of noise amelioration measures consistent with the ICAO10 balanced approach. 10 International Civil Aviation Organisation. The main areas are: • the extent of powers to set and deliver noise contour or quota controls, and • clarification of powers to permit surcharging of aircraft that deviate from noise preferential routes (NPRs) on departure. (Typically, adherence to NPRs is assessed against a ‘swathe’ 1.5km either side of the nominal centre of the departure route. Where modern monitoring equipment is installed, aircraft that stray outside this swathe can be detected 11) 11 In the case of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, where the Secretary of State is responsible for noise control, it has not been found necessary to impose surcharges except for the most persistent or flagrant violations. With modern navigational equipment, and by working in co-operation with airlines, it has been found possible to reduce NPR deviations to very low levels (about 1% at Gatwick). • the desirability of putting beyond doubt that aerodromes could voluntarily implement noise control measures within a reasonable range beyond the airfield itself. For example, aerobatics practice based on general aviation airfields often takes place at some distance from the aerodrome. We acknowledge that, for the most part, airports’ noise rules are applied and enforced without much legal contention, so the clarification and strengthening of these powers will not necessarily lead to dramatic improvements in the noise climates around aerodromes, in the short term. On the other hand, we have accepted that the Government has a duty in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights, especially in recognition of the protection from legal action afforded by section 76 (1) of the 1982 Act (see Question 16), to ensure that there are effective provisions to control and where possible ameliorate aircraft noise nuisance. Any system of surcharges or penalties that aerodromes introduce for breaches of noise amelioration schemes will have to meet normal standards of reasonableness and proportionality, ultimately with the possibility of legal challenge by a dissatisfied airline. However, legislative changes should usefully strengthen airports’ position in, for example, relying on a properly calibrated noise and track-keeping system, and avoiding vexatious challenges. An additional point is that licensed aerodromes are broadly required to accept the air transport traffic, which presents itself, without undue discrimination. This places an additional premium on the clarity of powers to discipline airlines, ultimately including the sanction of denying access where an airline is a persistent offender. Some concern was expressed that in order to address noise issues there may be a risk of safety being compromised by, for example, unorthodox circuits being specified. However any aerodrome considering the introduction of new noise amelioration measures would continue to need to be satisfied that any revised arrangements were safe in all the circumstances. Notwithstanding the Government’s strong preference for local solutions to local problems, if an aerodrome persistently resisted the introduction of reasonable voluntary noise amelioration measures the Secretary of State would have the option of designating the aerodrome under section 80 for the purposes of section 78 of the ‘1982 Act’ 12 or to specify under section 5 of the ‘1982 Act’.13 12 This provides for
the Secretary of State to prescribe measures to limit or mitigate the effect of
noise and vibration connected with the taking off or landing of aircraft at
aerodromes. THE AERODROMES (NOISE RESTRICTIONS) (RULES AND PROCEDURES) REGULATIONS 2003 Since the consultation was carried out the Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and Procedures) Regulations 2003 14 have come into force. Although the Regulations themselves do not require the introduction of new noise amelioration measures they set out the procedures which major airports 15 should follow when considering noise amelioration measures. Existing operating restrictions are not affected by the Regulations. Broadly, the Regulations require aerodromes to follow a ‘balanced approach’16 when dealing with noise problems at an airport and implement the EU operating restrictions Directive.17 The main rules are that aerodromes: 14 Statutory
Instrument 2003/1742. • may consider
economic incentives as a noise measure; Schedule 2 to the Regulations lists the matters to be taken into account when considering operating restrictions at a relevant airport and CAEP19 will shortly publish guidance for airports. Question 2 We asked whether the proposed new power should be available to all aerodromes or only to certain categories. We have concluded that this enabling power should be available to all aerodromes. Concerns over noise are certainly not restricted to large busy aerodromes. Even a small aerodrome may attract complaints as a result of, say, prolonged low-level circuit training. For this reason we could see no compelling argument for restricting proposed additional powers to licensed aerodromes; or based on movements or annual turnover. There were concerns at the potential cost, in time and money, for noise monitoring equipment for example, at the smaller aerodromes. Clearly, what would be reasonable at a major airport would be beyond what one would expect at a small grass airstrip used on an occasional basis, or even at a busy general aviation airfield. However, it should be borne in mind that at the majority of aerodromes, effective noise control arrangements will already exist and it is not the intention that these new powers should be used to unpick existing arrangements (including any planning permissions/conditions and section 106 20 agreements). 18 Annex 16 means the third edition of Volume 1, Part II of
Annex 16 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944. Question 3 We sought views on whether infringements of noise amelioration schemes set up by aerodromes should be on a civil or criminal basis. The majority of those that responded supported the use of civil law, one consideration being the less exacting burden of proof in the event of dispute. 21 21‘Balance of probabilities’ vs. ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. A number of points of view were put. On the one hand it was argued that using the law increased the risk of litigation which small aerodromes could ill afford and that ‘naming and shaming’ would be sufficient. At the opposite end of the spectrum was the view that criminal sanctions would be preferable – citing criminal sanctions for offences under the Environmental Protection Act – or at least as a fall back for persistent offenders. On balance we are persuaded that agreements between aerodromes and their users on noise amelioration measures should generally continue to be underpinned by civil law. We expect that financial or other types of penalties (e.g. suspension of an operator) would normally only be invoked after appropriate verbal/written warnings have been given. Question 4 In our consultation paper we explained that the Department did not propose to specify in detail the sanctions that aerodromes should adopt for aerodrome users that fail to comply with the terms of an amelioration scheme. We did, however, suggest that the Secretary of State should provide non-statutory guidance setting the minimum and maximum sanctions that aerodromes should adopt. There was widespread support from respondents for guidance to be issued. We shall work with relevant bodies to draw up non-statutory guidance on sanctions in due course. Some respondents suggested that a third party might set the sanctions rather than the aerodrome and also that the sanctions regime should be agreed with the local authority to whom compliance reports should be provided. Given the civil law remedies ultimately available, and the consultative framework which enables local authorities and amenity groups to put their views on such matters, we have not been persuaded that the bureaucracy involved in such an arrangement, would be justified.
12 |