Airports (Town and Country Planning) (Hansard, 15 July 1992)

§ Mr. John Denham (Southampton, Itchen)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to bring the operation of certain categories of civil airports and aerodromes within the scope of planning legislation; and for connected purposes. There is a revolutionary expansion in air travel. Far more people are flying in far more aircraft to far more destinations. Good air links, especially to Europe and within the United Kingdom, are increasingly and rightly seen as an essential element of regional economic development. However, there is a down side to the benefits. More and more airports, many long-neglected, are being pressed into greater use. Those who live under their flight paths see not benefits, but only more noise and more pollution.
Southampton Eastleigh airport is set to expand from 400,000 passengers to 1 million passengers a year. There will be many benefits throughout South Hampshire, but thousands of my constituents in Townhill Park, Bitterne Park, and Midanbury fear that their lives, already disrupted, will become a misery. Living on a rising hillside a mile or so from the runway, they anticipate a future of aircraft flying low overhead from the early hours of the morning until late at night, of unusable gardens on summer afternoons and of noise and air pollution.
Naturally, they expect the planning system and their local council to be able to protect them and to balance their real losses against the potential gains. However, the planning system at present is woefully deficient. Local councils do hot have the necessary powers. Indeed, they have more powers to control the noise from model aircraft than noise from the real thing.
The Government's consultation paper "Control of Aircraft Noise" set out the admirable principle that those responsible for causing noise should be responsible for keeping it to a minimum arid for incurring the costs of doing so. They should also be accountable to local people. Sadly, that is not how the system works.
The system is a lottery. If developments take place on the ground—for example, new terminals—there may be some controls over expansion but not if expansion uses existing facilities. The powers which do exist lie with the local authority where the airport is situated but not, as in Southampton, where those most affected live.
Many powers that exist or which might be created—to force the Civil Aviation Authority to take environmental factors into account, to require the soundproofing of buildings or to require airports to agree a statutory noise abatement plan with local councils—are exercised at the whim of the Secretary of State for Transport. Most have never been used and apparently never will be used except for the largest international airports.
Local councils do not have explicit powers to control expanding airport operations. At Southampton Eastleigh, planners have instead negotiated a planning agreement that contains some significant controls. I believe that, within its limited powers, the Eastleigh council, in consultation with the city council, has done a good job, but the agreement falls well short of local aspirations. In any 1152 case, planning agreements are always a murky, unsatisfactory process. They lack the transparency and openness that good, accountable planning requires.
The Southampton agreement has yet to be signed. Its most crucial element—a limited ban on night flights—has been postponed for 12 months already. Because the agreement is linked to an airport business park development, there must be some doubt whether it will ever be signed while this recession lasts.
My Bill will give local authorities the explicit right to control directly the expansion of airport operations. These powers would be triggered by any significant expansion in operations, whether sudden or incremental. The powers will cover the times of use, the number and types of aircraft movements and, subject to the proper role of the CAA, the routing of aircraft into and out of the airport. Councils will gain explicit powers to enforce noise control measures and to require monitoring and remedial action for noise, air pollution and vortex damage. Where two or more local authorities are significantly affected they will be required to exercise these powers collectively.
Any local planning system would be subject to appeal and to the balancing of regional and national interests with purely local interests. But my Bill will bring about a much-needed shift in power to local people and their elected representatives. Airports are probably the last major polluters, largely free of pollution control and not subject to rights of redress for individual citizens. Of the 250 airfields in the United Kingdom, only three currently come under the full force of existing powers. It is time that this situation was ended, and that is the purpose of the Bill.

§ Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test)
May I say a few words?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Morris)
Is the hon. Member opposing the Bill?

§ Mr. Hill
Yes, I am. I am opposing it because it does not go far enough. This has been a problem in Southampton for many years.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for many years, and he knows that that is not a negative. It is not acceptable, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.