Helicopters and Heliports (Hansard, 16 July 1991)

§ Ms. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision with respect to helicopter safety and air traffic control; to amend the law relating to planning controls on heliports; to protect the environment by restricting noise levels and controlling the use of helicopters; to assign responsibilities and duties in relation to helicopters; and for connected purposes. It is widely acknowledged that the law relating to helicopter movements and landing sites is unsatisfactory. Under the General Development Order, operators can use temporary or ad hoc sites for landing and take off for up to 28 days a year without planning permission, or consent from the Civil Aviation Authority. The days can be consecutive and there is no restriction on the number of movements. Helicopters can land on and take off from any site, so long as the pilot regards it as safe. They can use gardens, car parks, roofs of buildings, and so on. Planning permission may be required for the construction of hangars or landing pads, but it is not required when landing or taking off is incidental to the main use of the land—for example, when it is from an office building or a private house.

No one is responsible for monitoring that ad hoc use of helicopters and it is easy for the 28-day rule to be breached. The noise review working party of the Department of the Environment stated that the use of helicopters at private landing sites had greatly increased in recent years and was expected to increase further. However, because there is no requirement for the CAA to monitor helicopter overflights, especially in the central London zone, there is no record of landings, movements or routes flown.

For safety reasons, the CAA restricts single-engined helicopters in London to defined routes, especially following the River Thames. However, twin-engined helicopters are not restricted to routes and can fly anywhere over London in accordance with air traffic control instructions. Both the London Boroughs Association and the Association of London Authorities have been pressing the Government for licensing controls on commercial services to be given to a representative Londonwide control authority, which would consult local authorities.

Although a London helicopter advisory committee has recently been set up, its terms of reference do not include drawing up a Londonwide policy on helicopters. There is clearly a weakness with regard to strategic planning policy on the location and control of heliport and helipad facilities in London. The London planning advisory committee, set up after the abolition of the Greater London council, did not include a policy on heliports in its 1988 strategic planning advice for London; nor did the Secretary of State's planning guidance for London.

Helicopters create a particularly unpleasant and disturbing noise because of the volume, pitch and type of sound produced—the characteristic blade slap. The effect is that helicopters generate greater fears of crashing, induce feelings of visual intrusion and are generally perceived as more annoying than fixed-wing aircraft. In addition, there are problems in relation to measuring the noise because there is no consensus on a formula. According to the Airfields Advisory Federation, a widely 231 respected independent organisation, the current Government standards are widely regarded as outdated, and were not originally developed for helicopters.

Objection to helicopters on the basis of noise goes far beyond the simple syndrome of "not in my back yard", or nimbyism. The effects can be psychologically damaging and stressful for those living and working in close proximity to where the helicopters are used. The length of the Thames riverside is plagued by helicopters as it is considered the most suitable location for heliports and helipads. However, in its planning guidance to boroughs, the Department of the Environment specifically draws attention to the river being one of London's greatest assets and asks boroughs to give particular attention to the character of any development proposed on or near the river. That is precisely what boroughs from Richmond to Tower Hamlets want to do, but they do not have the powers to control the increasing environmental pollution from helicopters.

The River Thames is being allowed to become the noise sewer of London. A public inquiry into the plans for Cannon street heliport last autumn showed how strong the opposition to an increase in helicopter use in London was among people who live and work there. Any day now we expect the Secretary of State's decision on that proposed heliport. I hope that he refuses permission. A couple of weeks ago, the London Docklands development corporation applied for a helipad facility on Trinity Buoy wharf in docklands. As it is its own planning authority, it will be seeking permission from itself. I urge the Secretary of State to call in that application as a matter of urgency.

Surely no one sees the increase in helicopter facilities as an answer to London's traffic problems. Everybody, including the Department of the Environment, puts it way down the list of priorities in transport policies. But slowly and steadily, by stealth, more and more private individuals and businesses are making use of the helicopter to fly their way out of congestion.

I believe that the benefits, in terms of the numbers of users and time savings, can be argued as being small compared with the costs of the noise impact and environmental concerns. Overflying helicopters represent a noisy, intrusive assault on quality of life. Each flight disrupts and disturbs literally thousands of people. The economic growth that that flight would have to generate in 232 order to lead to a net increase in quality of life would have to be massive. However, challenged to demonstrate overriding need, the applicant in the Cannon street case last year said that the heliport was necessary, for example, to speed a London architect's trip to examine brick samples in Wales.

In 1984, the then Secretary of State for Transport announced that he was terminating the helicopter link between Heathrow and Gatwick. He said: Noise can be a potent destroyer of the quality of life … Helicopters seem to have a special vibrating noise …in the light of the environmental disturbance caused by the service we could not justify allowing it to continue in operation". If that was true of flights between Heathrow and Gatwick, it must be no less true of flights over the much more densely populated centres of our cities.

The final part of my Bill would clarify the registering of complaints, a process which at the moment is complex, confusing and unpublished. Time after time, the buck is passed between the CAA and the Department of Transport. A constituent of mine from the Waterloo area had her complaint passed backwards and forwards only to be referred to the British Helicopter Advisory Board, a company representing helicopter manufacturers and operators. Helicopter operators routinely and flagrantly ignore the routing and other regulations. Only the most persistent members of the public are likely to have their complaint registered. They need to sort that out.

I hope that hon. Members will support the Bill and take a step towards recognition that helicopter use in urban areas needs to be reduced and that helicopters and cities are not compatible.