Night Flights (Hansard, 23 November 1999)

§ Mr. Mullin

On 17 November 1998, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued the second of two consultation papers on night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. It was in two parts. Part 1 was concerned with the night restrictions regime for the three airports, and on 10 June 1999,Official Report, columns 378–80W, the then Minister for Transport in London, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), announced the new arrangements which came into effect on 31 October 1999. Part 2 examined options for changes to the preferential use of Heathrow's runways at night. The decisions I am announcing today are concerned with Part 2 of the consultation paper only.

The current pattern of use of Heathrow's runways has remained unchanged since the 1970s and is largely determined by three operational noise mitigation measures. The first and oldest is the Cranford Agreement, an undertaking given to local residents at a public meeting in July 1952 to avoid easterly take-offs from the northern runway during off-peak periods as far as practicable. Over the years it has come to be applied most of the time during easterly operations, so that easterly take-offs use the northern runway only exceptionally. It is possible that the long-standing preference for landing aircraft on the southern runway at night during westerly operations is also a legacy of that Agreement.

The second measure is westerly preference, which was introduced in 1962. This provides for westerly operations to continue where there is a light tail-wind up to 5 knots. While it is normal for aircraft to land and take off into the wind, it is safe to do so with a light tail-wind when the runway is dry and any cross-wind does not exceed 12 knots. The purpose of the westerly preference is to reduce the number of occasions that departing aircraft need to take off over the more densely populated areas to the east of the airport where it is not possible to design noise preferential departure routes which avoid heavily populated areas.

The third measure is runway alternation, which was introduced in 1972. It applies during westerly operations only. Westerly landings use one runway from 7.00 a.m. until 3.00 p.m. and switch to the other runway from 3.00 p.m. until 11.00 p.m. The pattern is reversed each week to achieve a fairer balance. Its purpose it to provide communities east of the airport under the final approach tracks with predictable periods of relief from the noise of landing aircraft. While runway alternation applies to landing aircraft only, it is generally the case that one runway is used for landings and the other for take-offs, 63W but take-offs are not precluded from using the runway assigned for landings. Runway alternation was confined to daytime operations to allow opportunities for maintenance of the runways and associated equipment at night. It was confined to westerly operations in order to continue observance of the Cranford Agreement.

In response to requests from local communities seeking a fairer distribution of aircraft noise at night, the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee (HACC) and BAA plc, with approval from the then Department of Transport, undertook two trials of runway alternation at night for both westerly and easterly operations in 1996 and 1997. Independent surveys carried out for the HACC to assess local reaction to the trials showed there was a clear level of support in the vicinity of the airport for extending runway alternation into the night period. It was decided to consult more widely before reaching a final decision.

9,522 copies of the November 1998 consultation paper were issued and 2,803 responses commenting on Part 2 (32 per cent. of the total) were received by the closing date. These included responses from the HACC, 2,649 individuals, 43 local authorities, councillors and local authority organisations, seven Members of Parliament, 63 environmental and local interest groups, and 24 representing airlines, airport and aviation interests. Most respondents were concerned to have the least possible number of night flights overflying their particular areas or asked for a ban on such flights. Most also expressed a general view, either supporting or opposing runway alternation at night or modifying the directional preference. Comparatively few commented on the 10 options outlined in the consultation paper itself. Nine respondents called for the termination of the Cranford Agreement and eight called for its continued operation. However, the Agreement was not among the issues examined in the consultation paper.

843 respondents supported the extension of runway alternation into the night period, including most local authorities, the HACC and aviation industry respondents. The widely held view was that runway alternation at night would be fairer and provide for more predictable periods of relief from the noise of landing aircraft. 51 respondents disagreed because they wished to retain the current arrangements or anticipated that runway alternation at night would lead to an increase in aircraft noise over their area. 86 of the 843 respondents who support runway alternation at night (mainly residents and representative bodies) called for it to apply throughout the night until 7.00 a.m., while 29 of the 843 (mainly aviation interests) said it should operate until 6.00 a.m. to avoid increasing delays to arriving aircraft. BAA consider that it might be possible for runway alternation to operate throughout the night if the scheme allowed greater discretion to land aircraft on the second runway between 6.00 a.m. and 7.00 a.m., interspersed with take-offs, to reduce the likelihood of arrival delays accumulating through the morning peak period.

In view of the clear support for extending runway alternation to the night period, which is consistent with the findings of the earlier HACC surveys, we have decided to open discussions with BAA on its introduction at the earliest practicable opportunity between 11.00 p.m. 64W and 6.00 a.m. As with daytime alternation, it will be necessary from time to time for the pattern of alternation to be interrupted to allow for maintenance of the runways and engineering works.

There are real practical difficulties with extending runway alternation to the hour from 6.00 a.m. to 7.00 a.m. There are usually take-offs scheduled in this hour, so during easterly operations runway alternation is precluded by the Cranford Agreement. It is already established practice during this hour to make use of both runways for landings, interspersed with take-offs, to ensure that there are as few aircraft as possible holding in the stacks awaiting permission to land before daytime runway alternation starts at 7.00 a.m. BAA, NATS and the airlines are concerned that having only one runway available for landings during this hour may lead to a build up of holding delays before daytime runway alternation starts at 7.00 a.m. which could not be cleared until the afternoon. Such delays could also have knock-on effects beyond UK airspace. We are satisfied that there is a genuine cause for concern here, but it has not been possible to forecast with confidence either the frequency or extent of the delays that might occur. On the other hand, runway alternation during this hour would bring real benefits to people living under the final approach tracks.

We have decided that the only prudent way forward is to undertake a trial of runway alternation during the 6.00 a.m. to 7.00 a.m. hour. The details of the trial will be discussed with BAA, HACC and NATS, but will allow NATS the discretion to make use of the second runway for landings whenever arrival delays building up in the system are expected to give rise to holding delays of a given duration. It is likely that different criteria will need to be examined in order to reach a view on what is practicable. Weather conditions, both locally and encountered en route by long haul aircraft, can contribute to the build-up of arrival delays. For this reason the trial will need to look at the winter and summer seasons and may continue for up to two years.

The responses to the consultation paper on the options for modifying the directional preference at night do not provide a sound basis for reaching a final decision at this stage. Strong views were expressed east and west of the airport, and many respondents called for a complete ban on night flights rather than changes to the direction in which the runways were used. However, there was also a recognition among many of the organisations and representative bodies that the present arrangements are not fair and equitable and could be improved; that view is shared by the Government. We also consider that it makes no sense from a noise amelioration standpoint to increase artificially the number of occasions when early morning arrivals overfly the more heavily populated areas of London by maintaining the 5 knot westerly preference at times when there are few or no take-offs.

We have decided not to take forward the options set out in the consultation paper, which would have precluded the introduction of runway alternation at night during easterly operations, and which would have concentrated arrivals noise in areas under the approach track to the southern runway during easterly operations. While these options offered the greatest potential for improvement over the present position in terms of the numbers of 65W people affected, the outcome would not have been fair and equitable. For the same reason we have decided not to take forward the 5 knot easterly preference option, except as part of Proposal B below. Therefore, we will be inviting comments on two proposals. These are:

(a) to suspend westerly preference at night after the last departure (including any delayed departures) until the first departure the next morning, but not later than 6.00 a.m.; this is expected to result in approximately 64 per cent. westerly operations and 36 per cent. easterly operations over the longer term;
(b) for the same period of the night, to put in place a fixed weekly rotation between westerly and easterly operations by applying a 5 knot preference, subject to overriding weather conditions; this is expected to result in approximately 53 per cent. westerly operations and 47 per cent. easterly operations over the longer term.

The Government are ready to proceed with either proposal. Full details will be set out in a DETR consultation paper to be issued today. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House. This further consultation will allow respondents to take into account the Government's decision on 10 June 1999 not to ban night flights.