HC Deb 17 July 1998 vol 316 cc755-64

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

2.30 pm
Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)

I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce a debate on the subject of limiting the environmental impact of airport developments.

In the next week, the Government will publish a White Paper setting out their proposals for an integrated transport policy. The House and large sections of our community await with considerable interest the Government's statement. Most of the publicity heralding the White Paper has focused on how my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his team will tackle the damage to our environment caused by the unfettered use of the car, and the largely unplanned expansion of the road transport system over the past century.

It is now well over 20 years since society began to take seriously the need to limit the environmental impact of the car, yet it is only in the last few years that there has been a growing realisation that the massive expansion in air traffic, and the associated development of airports, cannot be left to a combination of free market forces and the isolated planning inquiry decisions which have often permitted incremental environmental devastation.

My hope is that the White Paper will start in earnest the debate on how we can plan the future of air transport in this country in line with the Government's manifesto commitment: The guiding principles of our aviation strategy will be fair competition, safety and environmental standards. Central to the debate will be the question of how we can limit the environmental impact of airport developments. There is a growing body of opinion which says that we need a new approach to the development of airports. Before the last general election, the Deputy Prime Minister argued that it was time to think afresh about airport policy.

Until now, airport growth has been almost totally reactive to air traffic demand, and extremely little account has been taken of the long-term environmental impact of any development. The corollary of that approach is that the aviation industry has generally dominated policy making over airport expansion, while the wishes of communities and environmentalists have largely gone unheeded. If the preservation and improvement of our environment is to be among the core guiding principles of our integrated transport strategy, we can no longer simply react to the demands of the BAA, or any other section of the industry.

Instead, we must be proactive and set environmental standards and limits in advance of any proposed airport development or expansion. In that way, we should establish set criteria against which any development proposals would be judged and clarify an environmental cap placed on any particular airfield.

If anyone doubts the need for a new and proactive approach, I would simply draw to their attention the historical development of Heathrow, located in my constituency. Heathrow is a classic case study of the reactive incremental expansion of an environmental nightmare.

The history of Heathrow has been drawn together in a fascinating book by Phillip Sherwood, a local historian. He describes the small, picturesque villages and hamlets that existed in the south of my constituency before the second world war, including Heathrow, Longford, Harmondsworth, Sipson and Harlington. The fields near what was then Heathrow village became the location for a small civil airfield, which was brought into military use during the war. It is now clear that, at the end of the war, the Government decided that the Heathrow airfield should expand into a major airport for London.

For the following 30 years, the creeping development of the airport obliterated Heathrow village and began to erode the quality of the environment of the remaining villages and beyond. In the late 1970s, a proposal was submitted for a fourth terminal at Heathrow; it was eventually agreed to after an inquiry. However, lain Glidewell, the inspector at the inquiry, made a firm recommendation to the then Secretary of State: all possible steps should be taken to satisfy those living around Heathrow that this is the last major expansion at the airport. Initially, that was accepted by the Government. The then Under-Secretary of State for Trade, now Lord Tebbit, assured the House that the Government would not permit a fifth terminal at Heathrow. I regret the fact that, within six years, that commitment had been discarded and the inspectors' conditions ignored. As hon. Members will know, applications to construct a fifth terminal were submitted; they have been the subject of a public inquiry that has now entered its fourth year of deliberations.

The environmental impact of Heathrow is best illustrated by the representations being made to the terminal 5 inquiry by local community organisations and environmentalists. I pay tribute to the local residents who have led their David and Goliath struggle. I pay tribute to all those in the various residents' associations who have campaigned against the airport industry to protect our local—and, indeed, Londonwide—environment.

Leaders such as Dennis Gould and Rita Pearce from Longford, Mr. and Mrs. Sobey, who have campaigned for the Harmondsworth and Sipson association, and our former local councillor Keith Dobson have all had to fight hard merely to put their arguments at successive inquiries. Moreover, HACAN—the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise—has estimated that more than 1 million people are seriously affected by aircraft noise from Heathrow.

Mr. Tony Colman (Putney)

Does my hon. Friend agree that a ban on night flights is needed? I am sure that his constituents, like mine, have to put up with flights as early as 4 am every morning, which keeps them awake and makes life intolerable.

Mr. McDonnell

That is a pertinent point. At the terminal 5 inquiry, HACAN has made it clear that the noise generated by the four-terminal Heathrow is causing widespread suffering. Thousands of families are persistently deprived of sleep, as my hon. Friend said, by the noise of jumbo jets flying over London; the noise starts at 4 am and continues throughout the day. Even on BAA's evidence, 50 per cent. more people will be affected by aircraft noise in 2016 if terminal 5 is given the go-ahead.

From my constituency, residents' associations, the community health council and local doctors have combined to research and expose the impact on the health of local residents of air pollution from the airport and its associated road traffic. A key finding of surveys undertaken by the community health council and residents was the high level of respiratory illness among people living on the estates round the airport. One local doctor has reported an incidence of asthma among local children of twice the national average and a similarly high comparative incidence of asthma and respiratory disease among other patient age groups.

The residents' associations have also expressed strong concerns about the risk to public safety posed by the location of one of world's largest airports in an area of such high population density. We should never underestimate the risk to life and limb of an aircraft coming out of the sky over such a densely populated area. Hanging over the heads of all the residents is a sense of inevitability that, if terminal 5 is given the go-ahead, the increase in the number of passengers passing through Heathrow from 15 million a year to 19 million a year will result in the next development—a new application for a third runway.

A third runway could result in the demolition of up to 4,000 homes in my constituency, wiping off the face of the earth the remaining villages to the north of the airport and displacing a whole community. That prospect creates uncertainty, which blights a whole area and a whole community.

The experience of my community with Heathrow should never be repeated, there or anywhere else. It could be avoided by the process advocated by numerous community and environmental organisations: the setting of environmental limits for existing and new airports. Those limits are nothing more than a set of permanently fixed environmental criteria that must be adhered to at each airport or planned airport.

The limits would be enshrined in the area's local development plan, and would involve an extensive range of environmental impact assessments. They would protect the local environment from continual expansion of airports and relieve the uncertainties and blight that expansion pressures create in any community.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West)

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about Heathrow's impact on his constituency. He will also be aware of the possible sale of RAF Northolt to the private sector, or the increase in the number of commercial flights that has been touted by people from various sources. Does he agree that, if either scenario were to materialise, local communities in both his constituency and mine would suffer blight, and there would be considerable environmental consequences?

Mr. McDonnell

That is a valid point. The consequences would be devastating for the whole region. My constituents would be sandwiched between two major airports, with all the pollution that that involves, and my hon. Friend's constituency would suffer not only increased noise and pollution but road transport gridlock, which would affect the whole of north-west London.

Environmental limits would relieve pressure and give certainty, as well as demonstrating to the aviation industry exactly what the operational limits of a particular airport are and what standards would be expected in any planned new airport. Stability would be provided both for the communities and for the industry, and the need for lengthy planning inquiries would be obviated, or at least reduced.

Environmental limits could be established either by agreement between the local planning authority and the airport operator, or by the Government. Their effectiveness would depend on their virtual irreversibility once agreed or set. The range of impact assessments or criteria that would comprise the agreement for a particular airport would naturally reflect the local environment.

There could readily be local flexibility, but several core limits are obvious: the airport's geographical boundary and its proximity to residential properties; the appropriate noise contours; the types of aircraft to be operated and the maximum number of air traffic movements per annum; the runway configuration and approved tracks for aircraft; the times of operation; the need or otherwise for the use of reverse thrust, night running of engines, ground power units, and other high-noise sources; the location of public safety zones and built-up areas overflown by aircraft on landing and take-off; the development of infrastructure to support the airport; and the protection of the green belt.

In its evidence to the Transport Sub-Committee, the Aviation Environmental Federation provided a checklist of environmental concerns relating to the use of airports, including an exhaustive list of issues to be addressed, under the broad headings of noise and vibration; emissions and effluents; land take; and infrastructure.

Serplan, the south-east regional planning conference, recently published a consultation document on a sustainable development strategy for the south-east and recommended that local authorities identify environmental limits at existing airports and set capacities in relation to surface access, noise and associated developments.

The advantages of setting such limits are obvious. They would establish how much air and road traffic would be generated by an airport development; how many air movements would take place, and between what times; the noise levels permitted; and, combined with local development plans, the area beyond which the airport cannot expand.

For the aviation industry and local businesses, it would be clear what developments were applicable. It has been proposed that the monitoring and enforcement of environmental limits would be the responsibility of the local authority, which would have strict enforcement powers. However, with the advent of a strategic authority for London, that may well be one of the environmental powers that we could attribute to the mayor and the assembly.

The use of environmental assessments is not new, especially under European legislation. In the past year, the Government have been consulting on a European Union directive on the extension of impact assessments to the environmental effects of public and private projects. That directive provides for greater public access to the environmental information on major development projects, such as airport developments, which enhances accountability and democratic control and ensures that decision making is more open and transparent. That would be a first for the aviation industry. Environmental limits would give purpose and teeth to the assessment.

Clearly, the country has recently woken up to the need for a thorough debate on the future of airports and the aviation industry. Like other forms of transport, air transport has brought considerable benefits, but the massive growth in air traffic and the substantial growth of airports has also imposed significant environmental costs. In my constituency, we know of the effect on each generation—each generation of asthma sufferers, of people with respiratory problems and of people who cannot sleep at night and whose pleasure in their own gardens is undermined because of noise pollution.

If we are to tackle the environmental implications of that growth in airports, we must go beyond the protection of local environments from overblown airport development. We will need to combine the environmental limiting of airports with measures to promote the "polluter pays" principle within the aviation industry. That is a principle to which the Government have adhered since their election—they are now developing not only green policies but even green Budgets.

That could mean reviewing the existing tax exemptions on aviation fuel, for example, and negotiating via the European Union an environmental levy on airline fuel purchases. As in the car industry, that would increase the incentives for airlines to put pressure on manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency. In addition, Britain could follow other European countries by basing charges to airlines on the noise and weight of an aircraft, and fining individual companies for off-track flying.

I look forward to all those issues being tackled in the integrated transport strategy, which is to be published next week. I hope that, despite the proximity of that publication, the Minister will be able to throw some light on the Government's thinking on the impact of airports on the environment. That issue affects not merely my constituency and those of other hon. Members represented here today, but the whole of London. We have endured that problem for decades. It requires urgent attention, and I believe that this Government will give it such attention.

2.47 pm
The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) on his success in obtaining this debate and raising a matter that is of considerable importance not merely to residents in his constituency but those living throughout London, as he rightly said in his conclusion.

I shall do my best to respond to the issues that he raised, but I hope that he will appreciate that my responsibilities are primarily in the planning field and that wider matters of aviation policy are more strictly the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London. I know that my hon. Friend has contacted her about these matters and will continue to do so.

Our aim, like that of successive Governments since aircraft noise became a cause for concern, is to strike a balance between the economic benefits that airports bring and the numerous other effects on the surrounding communities, some of which are far less beneficial. Noise is usually the paramount concern of local residents, but we are also concerned about aircraft emissions, as they can affect both local and global air quality, and the surface access implications of airport developments, which are always carefully scrutinised.

Every airport has to tackle a range of waste and energy management issues, as well as development pressures, which are often concentrated in the areas surrounding an airport. Those pressures must be managed both by the airports and through the planning system to ensure that environmental consequences are acceptable.

Not surprisingly, much current interest in the subject surrounds BAA's current application for a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport. The House will appreciate that I may not address that issue in any great detail. The applications were accompanied by an environmental assessment, and the environmental impact has been the subject of much written and oral evidence to the inquiry. All information will be fully considered by the inspector, who is responsible for the conduct of the inquiry and for the consideration of evidence.

The Secretary of State's quasi-judicial position in the planning process precludes me from discussing the merits of the case, except to say that my Department's position on the application remains one of neutrality. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has appeared twice at the inquiry, and he will understand the constraints that I am under. Our factual evidence is already on the public record, and I do not propose to recite swathes of it here.

Ministers are, however, committed to speeding up the planning process, and the way in which proposals for major infrastructure projects of national importance are dealt with—a stance that we reiterated in a policy statement in January. We are examining various options, ranging from modifications to inquiry procedures to alternative processes such as special development orders, hybrid Bills and Transport and Works Act 1992 procedures. We intend to consult widely on proposals to improve planning appeal procedures generally, with a view to reaching quicker decisions and minimising uncertainty while safeguarding the ability of all interested parties to participate fully and effectively in the appeal process.

Mr. McDonnell

One matter that does not appear to have arisen during the consultation process is the power of compulsory purchase, which the BAA inherited from the nationalised industry. The BAA uses that power ruthlessly to pursue its objective of developing the airport beyond what the local community believes to be legitimate environmental parameters.

Mr. Raynsford

As I understand it, the proposals being considered at the inquiry concern land within the existing curtilage of Heathrow airport, so no compulsory purchase powers are required. As for the time scale for inquiries, the long-running inquiry into terminal 5 at Heathrow is very much the exception rather than the rule.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) mentioned Northolt. I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces said in a recent Adjournment debate, when he made it clear that early proposals on the future of RAF Northolt were highly unlikely. In any case, the concerns of the local community, which my hon. Friend rightly aired today, will be an important consideration, as will matters raised by the White Paper on integrated transport when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister publishes it in the near future.

Noise is of great concern to my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Putney (Mr. Colman), whose constituents are much affected by the noise of aircraft flying over them. Planning policy guidance 24 on planning and noise advises local authorities in England on the use of planning powers to minimise the impact of noise, at aerodromes and elsewhere. It sets out criteria for permitting both noise-sensitive and noise-generating developments, and it advises on the use of conditions to minimise the impact of noise. I am well aware, from my mailbag and from the views expressed by my own constituents who are affected by aircraft noise, of wide concern about noise in the vicinity of aerodromes. We will review PPG 24 and will take action, if necessary, to ensure that its principles are followed by local authorities and developers.

Regional planning guidance will apply national policies for airports at the regional level, taking full account of the Government's objectives for sustainable development, integration with surface transport and regeneration.

Mr. Colman

My hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the Heathrow express, which has just opened as extra access to the airport, access to which by public transport is difficult. Does he support the Sweltrac—South and West London Transport Conference—concept of a dedicated line from Waterloo through Putney and Wimbledon to allow direct access to the airport from the south-west?

Mr. Raynsford

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the merits of the Heathrow express, but I cannot be drawn into commenting on a matter that is not strictly my responsibility. I am sure that he has been assiduous in pressing the case for the Sweltrac proposal on my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London.

The Government recognise that it is essential that the potential impacts of development options, including airport development, are rigorously appraised as an integral part of the RPG preparation process. To that end, we have proposed that RPG should be subject to a sustainability and environmental appraisal from the outset. We have let a research project which will produce good practice guidance on the application of this technique, which is in its infancy, to RPG.

The Government are directly responsible for certain noise control requirements at Gatwick and Stansted, as well as at Heathrow, under section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Under this power, we set night restrictions, noise limits and routes for departing aircraft, and regulations relating to arriving aircraft. Noise insulation has been provided.

The Government are engaged in a two-stage consultation on night flying restrictions, which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, at the three airports. A preliminary consultation paper was issued at the end of February which sought views on all aspects of the current arrangements. All responses to it will be considered before specific detailed proposals for night flying arrangements are drawn up. These will be consulted on in the second stage paper, which we intend to issue at the end of September. Hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot comment in detail on this matter while the consultation process continues.

Proposals to reduce the departure noise limits, by 3 dB(A) for daytime and 2 dB(A) at night, were made by the previous Administration. Following representations by the International Air Transport Association, the Department has undertaken to issue a supplementary consultation paper on these proposals. When this paper is issued, eight weeks will be allowed for consultation.

Noise preferential routes for departing aircraft are of long standing and have been designed to minimize—subject always to the need of safety—overflight of the more densely populated areas. In a city such as London, it is impossible to avoid overflight completely; even in the vicinity of Gatwick and Stansted, it is inevitable that substantial numbers are directly overflown. Efforts are being made to improve compliance with the routes.

The Department, through its aircraft noise monitoring advisory committee, is also examining noise from arriving aircraft and the feasibility of operational limits, and the scope for improvements in operational practice by airlines and air traffic controllers. That issue has assumed increasing importance, not least as the noise climate attributable to departing aircraft has improved over the years at Heathrow, Gatwick and some other airports.

Ground noise is subject to separate arrangements, managed by the airports. It comprises a range of activities, including taxing, ground engine running and movement of airport vehicles, which can cause significant nuisance to people living in close proximity to the airport, including constituents in Hayes and Harlington. The Department's technical advisers, the department of operational research and analysis at National Air Traffic Services, have recently undertaken a study of ground noise at night at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, and intend to publish the results soon. BAA, partly in the light of this work, has taken steps to improve practice—for instance, by the increased use of fixed electrical ground power supplies instead of noisy auxiliary power units.

Returning for a moment to Heathrow, we have given a commitment to do everything practicable to ensure that the noise climate there continues to improve, even though, after the phase-out of chapter 2 aircraft, this will be more challenging to achieve than hitherto. Because of uncertainty about the future aircraft fleet mix at Heathrow and retirement dates for Concorde, we cannot be sure of achieving such improvements year on year, every year. However, we have offered a further assurance to local people around Heathrow that the Government will take all practicable steps to prevent any deterioration in the noise climate after the chapter 2 phase-out is complete.

The regulations made in the UK implementing agreements made through the International Civil Aviation Organisation for the limitation of noise and emissions from aircraft also bear closely on the environment around airports, both large and small. The Government participate actively in the international forums responsible for developing environmental standards for new aircraft, and we are pleased that the older, noisier chapter 2 jet aircraft will be withdrawn from service by March 2002. We are pressing for a new standard, quieter than the preset ICAO chapter 3 requirements, to lock in advances in technology, and work on that will start shortly.

The only other issue that I wish to discuss is that of environmental limits, the case for which was eloquently espoused by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. He made some interesting suggestions, not least on the role of the mayor and assembly. We will consider those points. I hope that I have assured him that the Government are actively considering the issue of noise and the environmental impact of airports and doing our best to improve matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.