HC Deb 04 August 1976 vol 916 cc2000-12

6.38 a.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell (Southampton, Itchen)

The matter that I wish to bring before the House tonight and to impress upon the Minister is the quite intolerable nuisance caused to large numbers of my constituents by the operations of the College of Air Training at Hamble.

There are four aspects that make this nuisance particularly unbearable. First, training aircraft are, by their nature, noisy planes. Secondly, they fly at a low height over areas of considerable population. The one with which I am particularly concerned is the housing estate at Thornhill, in Southampton, which includes many high-rise flats. I understand that the regulations say that these planes must fly at 2,000 ft, but I am never sure whether that means 2,000 ft above sea level or 2,000 ft above the ground. There is a difference. In this area 2,000 ft above sea level would be much less above the ground, because this estate is on high ground.

Thirdly, the planes follow particular and regular flight paths, which means that they pass directly over the same houses every two or three minutes. What we are dealing with here is virtually continuous noise.

Fourthly, and most important of all, is the fact that these operations continue until 11.30 pm or midnight during the summer months.

I can personally verify the extent of this nuisance. I have sat in a house in the area and listened to the noise. It was my intention at one stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to try to smuggle a tape recorder into the Chamber and play a recording of the noise during the course of the debate. Only the fact that I thought that you would disapprove of my action deterred me from doing so. If the Minister heard a tape recording he would appreciate fully the nuisance that my constituents have to put up with.

I realise that noise is a very personal thing. What affects one person may not affect another. It could well be that one constituent who lives in a house in the flight path is severely affected while his next-door neighbour may not even notice the noise. But I have information from local doctors who say that people have been treated for nervous conditions that were directly attributable to the operations of those aircraft night after night after night. I shall read one letter that I received from a constituent. It is typical of a large number that I have received. It says: I must write to thank you for your efforts on behalf of people who live in areas intolerably affected by the operations of the College of Air Training at Hamble. For 16 hours a day we have this constant, almost unbearable noise. On this day alone the first flight took off at 9 a.m., and at this moment—11.32 p.m.—aircraft are still taking off. I have a very personal grievance about this, because earlier this year my husband had a nervous breakdown, and he is still on anti-depressant tablets. How can I ever hope to see him again a happy and contented man if he cannot have peace and cannot sleep? As well as noise, there are other factors to consider. While sitting in the house I found that while the planes were going over it was almost impossible to watch the television because of considerable interference from the aircraft.

There is also the safety factor—although I do not want to make too much of this. However, there have been two crashes, and there is always a danger when trainee pilots fly over thickly populated areas.

I realise that we have to train pilots, but at the moment many of the trainees at Hamble are being trained not for British airlines but for foreign airlines. I recognise also that the college provides employment in the area. I had a letter from the Hamble Parish Council asking me to bear that point in mind.

Many of my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) have complained to the principal of the college on numerous occasions. Their complaints have been met with considerable lack of understanding. The principal takes the line that he is running a commercial undertaking, and while it is unfortunate that hundreds of people have to suffer as a result, it is just something they have to put up with.

This attitude has made my constituents very angry indeed. Many of them are threatening to take direct action. It has been suggested that they may drive their cars on to the runway to prevent the aircraft from landing or taking off. I have warned them against any such action because, apart from anything else, it is dangerous. But the fact that they are continually talking about such action shows the strength of feeling on the subject. I have argued that every constitutional means should be explored; that is why I have sat through the night in order to secure this debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to hold out some hope that the nuisance will be alleviated.

I do not want the college to close if that can possibly be avoided. All I want is a reasonable compromise. Perhaps may suggest how the compromise might he reached. Most important, all flying should cease at 9.30 pm at the latest, throughout the year. It is planes flying late at night, night after night, keeping people awake, that causes the real trouble. Why cannot the planes use different flight paths? That possibility should be investigated, because if implemented it would mean that the same people did not suffer the nuisance every night.

Thirdly, the planes should endeavour to fly at a greater height. If they are going to fly at 2,000 ft, it should be 2,000 ft above the land, not above sea level, because there is a great difference between the two. The college should also explore the question whether aerodromes could be used elsewhere in the country, so that the load can be spread.

If a compromise is not possible—and the suggestions I have made have hardly been greeted with enthusiasm by the college—the alternative is that we shall have to press very hard for the closure of the college. It is unfair and unjust for my constituents to have to suffer in this way every year. I do not want the college to close, if a compromise can be reached. We must therefore try for cooperation and compromise from the college authorities.

6.48 a.m.

Mr. David Price (Eastleigh)

The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), the Minister and I have certainly done nocturnal penance for those of our constituents who have their peace and quiet disturbed by low-flying aircraft. It is now nearly 7 a.m. and both the hon. Gentleman and I have been up all night in order to take part in the debate. I intervene because the college is in my constituency. Last summer the college nearly closed because British Airways stated that it would not be requiring any new pilots until 1978. Since the college was reconstructed in its present form in 1960, British Airways has been its mainstay.

The decision seemed to be a mortal blow to the college, but by the strenuous efforts of all concerned it obtained sufficient overseas orders from countries such as Iran, Kuwait, Bahrein, Indonesia and Zambia to enable it to keep going. This was due largely to the vigour of the principal, Mr. Scott.

The college holds 240 students, not all of them for flying, and it is earning about £7 million a year in foreign currency. It employs directly a staff of 240, a figure not to be sneered at in these difficult days.

I mention these facts in order to put the problem in context. I know that the hon. Member for Itchen does not want to see the college closed any more than do most of the objectors; they merely want peace and quiet.

In recent years, there has been a considerable amount of new housing in our constituencies below the flight paths of these training aircraft. However, aircraft have been flying out of Hamble since 1916 and the airfield has had existing user rights in planning terms. The hon. Member for Itchen receives many complaints from Thornhill, which is a relatively new estate, with high-rise flats, at the eastern corner of the city of Southampton. Most of the complaints to me come from Old Netby and parts of the parish of Hedge End, principally Foord Road and Burlesdon Road.

I have been in touch with the principal of the college on many occasions and he has told me that this part of Hedge End is particularly badly placed because, owing to the proximity of Eastleigh airport and its commercial traffic, most of the college's aircraft have to pass over this area when landing or taking off to avoid the risk of collisions.

The college was using these routes long before many of these houses were built. I know that it is no comfort to the people living in the houses, but it is worth pointing out that the local authority built or allowed to be built a number of houses in the flight path of these aircraft.

I have represented this area for the last 21 years. We tend not to get complaints in the winter, but there are complaints every summer—for obvious reasons.

How serious is the disturbance to people's peace and quiet from the training aircraft? The basic authority on this matter, the Wilson Committee, said that Neither experience nor experimental evidence support the suggestion that some measurable figure of noise intensity might be accepted as a universal limit towards which all noise control might be directed. There is no single measure, as, for instance, with toxicity in water, to measure acceptable noise levels.

The committee also reported that Of all effects, repeated interference with sleep is least to be tolerated; it is especially important to diminish noise during the earlier part of the night, because during the later phase of deep sleep even loud noises have less effect in wakening the sleeper. That is an important conclusion. It supports the view that night flying causes the greatest problem.

Equally, we must take into account the next point that the committee made, when it stated that we have not been able to find any evidence that moderate noise produces any direct and measurable physiological effect on the average person. The general effect on health must therefore be more psychological than physical. My own experience—I have included the period when I was a Minister dealing with complaints about Concorde—is that aircraft noise has a psychological effect rather than a physical effect upon people. This is where one gets into an uncertain area. But although it is uncertain it is still real to the sufferer.

It is only fair that I should put the other side of the picture. I must tell the House that the Hamble Parish Council, as the hon. Member for Itchen mentioned. took a different view from that taken by the complainants. Indeed, it produced a document in which it said that the majority of local residents are wholly in favour of the flying operations of the College of Air Training. It asked the lion. Member for Itchen and myself not to pay disproportionate attention to the objections that we have received.

As the Member representing the Hamble area, I have taken up the complaints that I have received both with the college and with the local authority, the borough of Eastleigh. The borough representatives tell me that they find the principal helpful. They say that he attempts to alleviate the problem as far as it is in his power to do so. They tell me that the circuits are varied as much as possible, although it is necessary for fixed routes to be used to avoid flying over the same routes that are used by other aircraft.

I believe that it is also the view of the hon. Member for Itchen that it is night flying in the hot summer weather that causes most of the distress to which he referred. None of us wants to have our peace disturbed by aircraft noise if it can be avoided. The hon. Gentleman and those who have organised the action group have put forward a number of specific proposals, which I shall not go over again at this late hour. If the proposals were accepted by the college it would cause great relief to those who are being disturbed. I am in no position to say what precisely what would be the effect upon the college's training programme of implementing the proposals. I leave that to the Minister, the Civil Aviation Authority and to the college to comment upon.

I end by putting to the Minister and the hon. Gentleman a point contained in a very fair letter that I received yesterday from a constituent from Bursledon, who wrote: The classic 'British Compromise' has characterised the manner in which we sort out disputes, internal and international. It indicates a sophisticated level of political problem solving. The problem of night flying over the Hedge End/Old Nettley area seems ripe for a little 'give and take' on both sides. Perhaps, Mr. Price, it is the right moment for you to act for the good of all the community. It is in that spirit—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would reciprocate—that I ask whether we can find some compromise that will enable the college allowing for all the troubles it has come through, to continue and, at the same time, give a little more peace and quiet to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine.

There is no universal acceptable level of noise on which we can come to an agreement. We must recognise that a level of noise is acceptable to one person is not acceptable to another. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can produce what I and the hon. Member for Itchen both want, as well as my constituents, namely, a middle way.

7.0 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis)

I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), who has demonstrated yet again that tenacity and conscientiousness that the whole House admires in him by having remained there throughout the night and opened this debate at 6.40 a.m. That exemplifies the very keen interest that he has for his constituents, which is reflected not only in what he said in the debate but in the correspondence he has addressed to me on this subject.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), who speaks with a wealth of experience because in the past he has undertaken the role that I fulfil in this Government, of trying to hold the balance between aviation and environmental interests. He knows very well that this is never as easy balance to hold and that what normally happens is that we upset both interests, please neither, and are left in the middle. Nevertheless, I think it is important that one should continue to occupy that middle position if one is to do the job at all and try to avoid the brickbats whenever one can. Both hon. Members have spoken on the basis not of hearsay evidence but of direct evidence. I therefore listened to them with keener interest than I would if they had merely been reporting events that they heard from someone else.

I hope that both hon. Gentlemen will feel that this is an offer made in good faith, and that it indicates my keen interest in trying to resolve some of the problems, if I tell them that I propose to visit Hamble myself during the summer, when the problem, as I understand it, is at its worst.

One of the things that I try to do when I adopt this sort of policy—I have done it in relation to Heathrow, Gatwick and other airports that I have visited—is not to announce when I am going, so that I cannot be got at by either the aviation or the environmental interests. In that way I can make up my own mind about the burdens of the problem that have to be borne.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell

Will the Minister ensure that the news does not get down through the "old boy" network, because it has happened once before, and no planes flew that day?

Mr. Davis

If no planes were to fly, however naïve I might be, I would suspect that something untoward was going on.

Having said that, I accept that, for some people living near to the airfield at Hamble, the continuous circuit flying and other aspects of the training operations that are carried on may be extremely annoying in terms not only of noise but of interference with television. I am not sure whether television blight is necessarily one that compares with the first that I mentioned. I suppose it depends on what one is concerned to look at. It is hardly comparable to the noise nuisance that arises from the large jets at Heathrow, but it is of a different kind.

If there are breaches of the flight regulations, that is a matter for the CAA, which could take action if satisfied by the evidence. Any evidence of substance should be passed on to the CAA for investigation and, if necessary, action.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell

I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to the height factor. Is the 2,000 feet limit meant to be above sea level or above the area over which one is flying? That makes a substantial difference to the noise.

Mr. Davis

I think that it is the latter, but I shall confirm that—I have not previously addressed my mind to the matter—and write to both hon. Gentlemen.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh recounted some of the history of the college. It was originally established in an essentially rural setting. Now, about 1,000 people live within a mile of the centre of the airfield and another 20,000 live between one and two miles away. There are several schools and hospitals within a distance of two miles. Practically all this development has taken place in recent years while the airfield has been in active use for training pilots. One may wonder whether the local planning authorities had always been wise in giving consents to such noise-sensitive developments, but this problem is not unique to Hamble.

We must deal with realities. The only certain cure is to close the college. The training of pilots is an absolute necessity, I agree, for our civil aviation, quite apart from the incidental fact that in recent years the college has been a foreign currency earner from the training of overseas trainees. It is right, therefore, to say that closure is almost impossible to contemplate.

The only alternatives are to leave it at Hamble or to find another site. Even if we disregarded the problems of finding a site in the present economic climate, which is not something that a junior Minister at this Department can contemplate with equanimity—I know my station—could the outlay of several million pounds be justified?

All the studies of the annoyance caused by aircraft noise show that it is a subjective matter. What annoys one man does not necessarily annoy another. Nevertheless, it is frequently a torment to the person who finds that it is so annoying. I have described it in the House, in another context, as a pestilence.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh is right also in asserting that there is no readily defined limit of noise available at present, nor, I think, will there be in future. How does one distinguish, in these terms, between day and night flying by the measurements available to us. The other fact, perhaps surprising on the face of it, is that there is little or no evidence of property values being diminished by reason of airport noise. I relate that remark not simply to Hamble but to other airports throughout the United Kingdom.

Having said that, I do not gainsay that there are real difficulties for some people. My task is to see how we can, in practical terms, take some steps to mitigate these problems, and in the last part of my speech I wish to go into the question of possible further ameliorative measures which may be available at Hamble.

I start from the proposition that all aerodrome operators will do their utmost to take all measures reasonably open to them to keep noise to the irreducible minimum, consistent with efficient use of the aerodrome. At Hamble measures have already been taken to so arrange the circuits flown that some of the schools and hospitals in the area are not overflown. That is helpful, as far as it goes. I would hope that there may be some scope for circuit changes, and perhaps for changes in heights flown, for restricting weekend flying and, although it must be accepted that some night training is essential, for achieving some limitations in night flying.

Mr. David Price

On that point, will the Minister say whether it would be possible, now that the Royal Navy is flying so much less, for the college to fly into the airspace that was hitherto taken by the Ministry of Defence? I leave that thought with the Minister without expecting an immediate answer.

Mr. Davis

That is a possibility that might be considered, because it will fit into what I shall say in a moment.

Although it must be accepted that some training flights at night have to be undertaken for obvious reasons, there may be scope for achieving limitations in that night flying. My hon. Friend suggested a curfew at 9.30 p.m., or thereabouts. A time even earlier than 9.30 p.m. might be possible. I believe that an examination should be made of the possibility of undertaking some of the training from other airfields in the United Kingdom, or even abroad, using Hamble as a base.

The only feasible way of investigating these propositions is to do it locally. With that in mind, and in order to ensure that the local amenity societies, through which complaints are often channelled, and the local authorities within the noise shadow, are fully in the picture, my officials have suggested to the college authorities that there should be established a formal consultation machinery, in the form of a consultative committee, with an independent chairman, on which all interested parties are represented.

This proposal follows the pattern established at other airports in the United Kingdom, which the hon. Gentleman will recall. I hope that the college authorities will respond favourably to this proposal, which I understand they are considering. I would like it to be kept in mind—although this is a subject for negotiation—that the committee membership should include representatives of the local authorities to which I specifically drew attention and of amenity societies in the area overflown by Hamble traffic. That can be considered.

Clearly, the college principal should be on such a committee, together with his director of training, someone from flight training licensing in the CAA, necessarily someone from my Department, and our air traffic adviser. That would form the basis of the proposal that I hope will be implemented with the agreement of the college principal.

I have made my position quite clear. I hope that that will be of some influence in the matter.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell

First, am I right in thinking that the Ministry has no power to impose such a solution, and that it would have to be done voluntarily by the college authorities? Secondly, on the composition of the committee, mention was made of amenity societies. Would that include a body that has now been formed in the area? I attended a meeting of over 100 people recently. The body has been formed to get something done about aircraft noise at Hamble. It is not an amenity society.

Mr. Davis

That is a matter that should be sorted out locally. I have suggested some lines of guidance that might be followed. I do not think I should take it further than that. What normally happens is that certain amenity groups that have achieved a recognised status are represented on the committee. I do not know what the local set-up at Hamble is likely to be. I should not be wise if I attempted to predicate what should happen beyond having given those general guidelines.

On the first point, my hon. Friend is right. Section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act 1968 is relevant. We expect aerodrome managers to take steps that are open to them to reduce noise nuisance from the aerodromes that they control and manage. In furtherance of that aim, the busier airfields, including Hamble, have been designated under Section 8. The relevant part of the section provides that The person having the management of any aerodrome to which this section applies shall provide for users of the aerodrome, for any local authority (or, if the person having the management of the aerodrome is a local authority, for any other local authority) in whose area the aerodrome or any part thereof is situated or whose area is in the neighbourhood of the aerodrome, and for any other organisation representing the interests of persons concerned with the locality in which the aerodrome is situated, adequate facilities for consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome which affects their interests. The usual way of doing that is through the form of consultation to which I have referred.

I do not suggest that what I have proposed offers a panacea. Local consultation, however effectively organised, is not likely to remove the problem, and perhaps will not even produce radical solutions. However, I think that it has the advantage of enabling those who are involved on both sides to understand more directly the respective problems of the other people who are concerned with the problems of the local population, and of those using the aerodrome. I believe that, in consequence, solutions, albeit only partial, will be facilitated and that the very least it may be possible to satisfy everyone that what can be done is being done.

I hope that that line of thought will avoid the threat of direct action, which, apart from being unconstitutional—which is one reason why it is opposed by my hon. Friend—would also be counter productive, because it would get people into entrenched positions from which they would have difficulty in extracting themselves.

My hon. Friend briefly alluded to safety. Operations at Hamble are subject to the same regulations as those at other aerodromes, and any departure from that rule would be pursued by the CAA, which licences the aerodrome and is generally responsible for safety aspects. Risk of damage to property or injury to the local population is small. I do not want to appear complacent, but Hamble's accident record over recent years is a typical one for a flying training school. The preponderance of accidents have occurred without injury, and have involved students. In the last 10 years three serious accidents have occurred, none of which injury to third parties. They were each subject to searching inquiry by the accidents investigation branch, and immediate measures were taken to prevent any recurrence.

I understand why my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Eastleigh raised the matter. I hope that what I have said establishes my sympathy and understand- ing of the problems, and that the proposals that I have advanced will lead to a mitigation of the problems that cause anxiety to their constituents.