CAA: Helicopter Operations (Hansard, 16 December 1998)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)
My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority will consider all aspects of proposed helicopter operations, including helicopter type and capabilities, pilot experience and the level of rescue and fire fighting services available. It is not required to consult with local residents.
However, the CAA is aware of the interest to residents of helicopters wishing to overfly London and therefore attach extra conditions to the permission to fly. These can include restricting the operations and the movement of the helicopters. The local authority also has an interest in respect of planning permission.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he confirm that he is aware of the great concern of those people living in the vicinity—I am talking of course about the Harrods' helicopter—where new helicopter landings are proposed on top of tall buildings in London residential areas? Does the noble Lord agree that residents have legitimate cause for worry due to loss of amenity through high levels of intrusive noise, wind turbulence on landing, pollution, and aspects of safety? Do not the divisions of responsibility between the CAA, the local authority and the DETR leave possible gaps in control and as regards consultation with local people?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the CAA's prime responsibility in these circumstances is safety. I understand that with regard to the specific site which underlies the noble Baroness's question, a permission was granted last December to operate a maximum of 10 flights per week for a year. That permission was based on safety standards and the frequency stipulated. As far as the CAA is aware, that has not been exerted apart from testing flights and therefore the CAA has not received any representations. Matters of noise and disturbance are primarily matters for the local authority, as in other noise situations.

§ Lord Strabolgi
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who live in central London have to suffer helicopters hovering overhead, sometimes for hours on end. While those may be necessary, perhaps for police purposes, will my noble friend confirm that they will not be used, on any account, for tourist flights and other such frivolous purposes?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, there is a heliport in London and there are routes to the heliport in Wandsworth. However, the majority of flights in the neighbourhood of this Palace, and, indeed, my noble friend's residence, relate to police and military movements. There are very few building-top sites with permission in central London.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have letters here from Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council which make it clear that Harrods has made an application for a certificate of lawful proposed use which has been refused? Harrods 1347 now has the opportunity either to apply for planning permission or to appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment against the refusal of a certificate for proposed lawful use. In that event, it would be open for members of the public to raise objections.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, my understanding is slightly different from that of the noble Earl. I understand that Kensington and Chelsea Council has received an informal approach about planning permission. If planning permission is required and Harrods goes ahead with seeking that, then obviously the views of residents will be taken fully into account in that and in any appeal to the Secretary of State.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, am I to understand from my noble friend that, unlike the situation at airports in London where consultative committees operate with representatives of local authorities and residents who are most affected, heliports are not served by such consultative committees in the capital? If not, why not?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, there is a different arrangement in relation to the Wandsworth heliport. We were discussing private helipads on the top of buildings and clearly such arrangements would not be appropriate in those circumstances.

§ Lord Glenarthur
My Lords, I declare a non-financial interest as the chairman of the British Helicopter Advisory Board. Does the Minister agree that in addition to Battersea—and this matter has been discussed over many years—properly approved, licensed and regulated facilities for landing helicopters in London might reduce the number of ad hoc sites such as the one about which my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes is concerned which are allowed to operate under existing planning legislation? Do the Government intend to take forward some of the work which was conducted several years ago in the London Heliport Study which looked into that particular issue?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord on that matter. That is not planned in immediate terms. But that will clearly be a matter to be considered when we look at integrated transport provision within London to be undertaken both by the Government and, eventually, subject to Parliament's view, the mayor of London.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, with respect, I did not wholly understand my noble friend's answer. Is he saying that a consultative committee does operate at the Wandsworth heliport?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the structure in relation to that is different from that which exists at large airports. However, there is consultation with users and residents in relation to commercial heliports. I was drawing a distinction between commercial heliports and private use by Harrods and at one or two other sites in central 1348 London which basically consist of helicopters landing on the roofs of buildings which are there for entirely different purposes.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, will the Minister accept from me that I have a copy of a press release from the Royal Borough in which it is made clear that the application was for a certificate of lawful proposed use, which has been refused? The applicant is now entitled to lodge an appeal against that decision. But as I understand it, if the council had issued that certificate, there would have been no opportunity at all for local residents to make known their views. We were informed that views could not be considered as it was not a planning application but it was for a "certificate of lawful proposed use". The Minister said that the CAA does not have to consult anyone. If the certificate had been issued, there would have been no consultation whatever.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I suspect that the noble Baroness has a point here but, of course, the responsibility of the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea was to see whether wider planning considerations would apply. I assume, although it is a matter for the authority, that that was one reason for the refusal and why it is now considering whether full planning permission is needed.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, is it not the case that Harrods has the opportunity to go to the Secretary of State for the Environment to appeal against the local authority's decision, in which case the public will then have the opportunity to make representations?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, if the planning permission procedure is followed, then appeal would be available.

§ Lord Whaddon
My Lords, are those aircraft compelled by law to carry adequate third party insurance?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am sure that the answer to that is yes, but I had better write to my noble friend after I have made sure of the terms.