Aviation and the environment

April 2003
Report 195
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Summary

Summary
Air travel is forecast to grow, possibly trebling by 2030. The Government is
consulting on whether and where this demand should be met, and a White
Paper is due at the end of 2003. Growth in air travel affects the environment
locally through noise, air pollution, and damage to wildlife, heritage and
landscapes. More widely, emissions from aircraft engines contributes to global
warming.

This report examines the environmental effects of civil aviation, and the options
available to mitigate these effects. The main findings of the report are that:
• historically, technology has been able to reduce the environmental impacts of
aviation, but, in the face of forecast growth, cannot continue to offset all
impacts
• there is scope to reduce impacts through operating procedures (e.g. flight
paths) and land use planning
• there is broad agreement that the aviation industry should meet its
environmental costs, although it is unclear how these costs should be defined,
how they should be met, and whether this will reduce impacts
• considerable differences of view remain over what might be considered
‘sustainable’ in terms of aviation, and so there is scope for a wider public
debate over the future of aviation growth in the UK.

March 2003
Report 195
Contents
1 Introduction 5
1.1 Background to this report 5
Aviation in the UK – chapter 2 5
Noise – chapter 3 6
Local air quality – chapter 4 6
Other local environmental effects – chapter 5 6
Effects on the global atmosphere – chapter 6 6
Overarching issues – chapter 7 6
A note on distance measurements in aviation 6

2 Aviation in the UK 7
2.1 The UK aviation industry 7
Airports 7
Airspace 8
Airlines 8
2.2 Aviation and the UK economy 10
2.3 The regulatory framework 10
International regulation 10
European regulation 11
Role of the UK Government 11
2.4 Growth forecasts 12
Passengers 12
Freight 13
Uncertainties in the forecasts 13
Unconstrained and constrained growth 13

3 Noise 15
3.1 Noise from aircraft 15
Measuring aircraft noise 15
3.2 Impacts of noise on people 15
Annoyance 16
Sleep disturbance 18
Effects on health 19
Effects on educational achievement 19
Overall effects of noise 19
3.3 Current and future aircraft noise in the UK 19
Current noise levels 19
Future exposure 19
3.4 Reducing the impacts of noise from aviation 20
Regulating aircraft noise 20
Reducing aircraft noise at source 20
Land-use planning 22
Changes to operational procedures 23
Restrictions on the use of the noisiest aircraft 24
Mitigating noise 24
Further measures to reduce aviation noise 25
Local or national control 26
Voluntary agreements or regulation 28
 The role of economic incentives 28
3.5 Overview 29

4 Local air pollution 31

4.1 Air pollutants and their sources 31
Aircraft engine emissions 31
Airport operation 31
Transport links 32
4.2 Health effects 32
4.3 Reducing air pollution from aviation 32
International action 32
European action 33
UK action 33
Reducing emissions from aircraft engines 34
Aircraft operations 35
Airport operations and surface access 35
Information needs 35
4.4 Overview 36

5 Other local environmental impacts 37

5.1 Land take 37
Effects on wildlife habitats 37
Mitigating effects on wildlife 37
Effects on landscape and heritage 38
Mitigating effects on landscape and heritage 38
5.2 Water pollution 39
Effects on water 39
Mitigating effects on water 40
5.3 Waste management 40

6 Effects on the global atmosphere 43

6.1 Aviation and climate change 43
Factors affecting aircraft emissions 43
6.2 The scale of the effects 43
International 43
National 45
6.3 Reducing effects on the global climate 45
Technological options 45
Operational procedures 46
Overall potential reductions in greenhouse gas emissions 47
6.4 Further incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 48
6.5 Overview 49

7 Cross-cutting themes 51
7.1 Technological issues 51
The rate of innovation 51
Technological trade offs 52
7.2 Environmental capacity 52
Setting local limits 52
Environmental capacity in practice 53
7.3 Operations and land use planning 54
Operations 54
Financial recompense 54
 Land use planning and appraisal of airport developments 54
7.4 Meeting the environmental costs of aviation 56
7.5 Environmental impacts in a wider context 57
What is ‘sustainable’ aviation? 57
7.6 Overview 59
Contour accuracy 61
Criticisms of Leq as a measurement of aircraft noise 61
Is there an alternative? 64

Annex to Chapter 7: Environmental assessment 65

Project Level Environmental Impact Assessment 65
Strategic Environmental Assessment 68

Acknowledgements 71

Boxes
Indirect contributions of aviation to the UK economy 9
Measuring sound and noise 16
Noise annoyance 17
Regulating aircraft noise in the UK 21
Noise control at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted 25
Manchester Airport sound insulation grant scheme 26
Consultation on control of noise from civil aircraft 27
Air pollution at Heathrow 34
Aircraft engine emission charge at Zurich airport 35
Surface access at Heathrow 36
Environmental management at Manchester Airport 39
De-icing at airports 40
Managing airport wastes 41
Climate change effects of subsonic aircraft 44
Emissions charges for greenhouse gases from aviation 49
Types of environmental capacity limits 53
Public participation in environmental decision making 56
Costing the environmental impacts of aviation 58
Boundaries of sustainable aviation 59
Noise mapping and airport expansion: the Sydney experience 63

Figures
Forecast growth of aviation in the UK, 1998 to 2020 12
Noise contours around Heathrow Airport in 2001 16
Forecast noise exposure from expansion at UK airports under three scenarios 20
Main steps in the environmental assessment process 66
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Introduction Page 5

1 Introduction
1.1 Background to this report
Air travel is forecast to grow, with the numbers of passengers passing through UK airports each
year possibly trebling by 20301. However, increases in air travel affect the environment at a local
level through noise and effects on local air quality. Similarly, the use of land for airports can
affect nature conservation, architectural and archaeological heritage and landscapes, and can
shift the patterns of urban development. At a larger scale, emissions of greenhouse gases from
aircraft engines contribute to global warming.

In July 2002 the Department for Transport (DfT) began a consultation on how much new airport
capacity should be provided over the next 30 years, and where. The consultation sets out various
scenarios for growth in demand depending on the extent, if any, of demand management. Seven
regional consultation documents (including a second edition of the document covering the south-
east of England2) set out the consequences of these national policy scenarios for different parts of
the UK, and propose options for where increased capacity could be provided.

The Government has asked for views on the different scenarios, how much new capacity should
be provided, and which of the options should be adopted in individual regions. Comments are
also invited on provision and funding of surface access to airports. The consultation period closes
on 30 June 2003. Responses will be analysed and the results will contribute to the formulation
of the White Paper setting out the Government’s 30 year aviation policy. The White Paper is
expected towards the end of 2003.

This report discusses the environmental effects of civil aviation and the options available to
mitigate these effects3,4. It also outlines wider issues such as how environmental, social and
economic factors related to aviation interact and can be combined in decision-making to achieve
agreed environmental outcomes cost-effectively.

This report has been published during the Government’s consultation on the future development
of air transport in the United Kingdom and in advance of the White Paper on aviation. It will
inform an inquiry on aviation by the House of Commons Transport Select Committee5 which is
expected to report by summer 2003. While environmental issues are not the only concerns
raised by the forecast growth of aviation in the UK, it is hoped that this report will be of use to
Parliamentarians and others in their consideration of environmental factors alongside economic
and social considerations.

Aviation in the UK – chapter 2

By way of background, Chapter 2 examines the place of aviation in the UK economy. It also sets
out the regulatory framework, both national and international, within which the UK aviation
industry operates. Air travel in the UK and internationally is forecast to grow significantly over
the next 30 years and the latter part of this chapter outlines the forecasts and the assumptions on
which they are based.

1
The Future Development of Air Transport in the UK: A National Consultation, Department for Transport 2002.
2
Issued in response to a High Court decision that the Government should include Gatwick in its consultation.
3
In discussion of the environmental impacts, the report focuses on the impact of use of aircraft in flight operations. It
does not analyse any environmental impacts of aircraft manufacture or disposal.
4
Environmental and Health Impacts of Aviation, European Parliament Directorate General for Research, STOA (Scientific
and Technological Options Assessment), Options Brief and Executive Summary, PEnr296-693 January 2001
5
House of Commons Transport Committee press notice, 22 November 2002.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Introduction Page 6

Noise – chapter 3
For many living around airports, noise is the most evident environmental impact of aviation.
Community action groups have been established at many of the UK’s airports. particularly where
noise is an issue of considerable concern. Chapter 3 examines the sources of noise from airports,
the effects of noise on people and the implications of the forecast growth in aviation. Potential
technical and policy options to reduce aircraft noise are outlined.

Local air quality – chapter 4

Aircraft engines and braking systems emit a range of substances that can affect air quality.
Emissions are greatest during landing and take-off, but total emissions from engine idling or
taxiing can also be significant. As well as the aircraft themselves, emissions are also produced by
ground transport at the airport, such as baggage handling vehicles and transfer coaches. Road
transport to an airport is often a significant contributor to air pollution around busy airports. This
chapter discusses the nature and relative contributions of the different sources of air pollution at
airports, and the potential impacts of these pollutants on health. It describes the current and
future state of air quality around the UK’s airports, and options to mitigate adverse effects.

Other local environmental effects – chapter 5

The presence of an airport, in effect a large and busy industrial facility, inevitably takes land that
could be used in other ways. Airports require land for the airport infrastructure itself and for the
local transport links. In addition, airports generate demand for land from other uses such as
housing or businesses and ultimately can alter the wider pattern of urban development. This
affects local wildlife habitats and watercourses and can affect landscape, architectural and
archaeological heritage. The large numbers of people using airports can also strain local
infrastructure for water supply, sewerage and waste disposal. Chapter 5 outlines the effects of an
airport on its local environment and discusses some means to mitigate these effects.

Effects on the global atmosphere – chapter 6

Aircraft emissions contain carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas) and other pollutants which
can also have a global warming effect, particularly water vapour and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The
impacts of water vapour and NOx emissions at high altitude are not well understood, so their
effects on the global atmosphere remain uncertain. Chapter 6 draws on previous studies in this
area by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the UK’s Royal Commission
on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) as well as some more recent research to summarise what is
known about the effects of aviation on the global atmosphere. It also examines current
international and European developments to address these issues, and prospects for UK action.

Overarching issues – chapter 7

The environmental effects of aviation do not always fall neatly into the subjects outlined in
chapters 3 to 6, but often arise as more complex and interrelated topics. In some cases
addressing one environmental effect, such as noise or local air pollution, may have a detrimental
effect on others, such as greenhouse gas emissions. This chapter examines how far technology
can be applied to address these effects and discusses the means to appraise the environmental
impacts of aviation. It concludes by examining what the concept of ‘sustainable development’
might mean in relation to aviation.

A note on distance measurements in aviation

By convention, aviation uses non-metric units to measure distance. The altitude of an aircraft
and the distance between aircraft are measured in feet (one foot = 0.3048m), and distances
from runways (e.g. on approach or take-off) are measured in nautical miles (one nautical mile is
1.15 statute miles, or 1.85 kilometres).
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Aviation in the UK Page 7

2 Aviation in the UK
This chapter provides a context for the later discussion of the environmental issues raised by
aviation. It considers the structure of the UK’s aviation industry, its contribution to the UK’s
economy and the regulatory framework. This chapter also outlines national and international
forecasts of aviation growth.

2.1 The UK aviation industry

Airports
The UK has around 140 civil licensed airports. The largest are around London, with Heathrow
handling around 1,250 flights a day, around 64 million passengers per annum (mppa), and
serving direct flights to 170 destinations. Gatwick and Stansted handle around 30mppa and
16mppa respectively. Early in 2003, Stansted received planning permission to increase its
terminal capacity to handle up to 25mppa. The largest airport outside London is Manchester,
which handles around 18mppa. Beyond these, is a number of smaller regional airports, such as
Glasgow, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Leeds-Bradford, East Midlands, Humberside, Bournemouth
and Cardiff. Moving down in size even further are small airfields and airports such as Biggin Hill
in Kent or Wick in Scotland and even some sites that handle only a few flights per week.

The bulk of airport activity in the UK is centred on the London airports, and indeed, taking
Heathrow, Gatwick, London City, Stansted and Luton together, these airports represent the
largest air transport system in Europe, handling nearly 100 million passengers in 2000/016.
Heathrow alone, with its four terminals and two main runways7, is one of the largest airports in
the world and is by far the largest in the UK. However, Heathrow (until Terminal 5 is built) and
Gatwick are now at their full capacity for much of the day. Manchester’s second runway (which
opened in 2001) was the first full-sized runway to be built in the UK for over 50 years. European
competition with Heathrow has recently started to increase with the development of the three
other main hubs at Paris Charles de Gaulle (4th runway under construction), Amsterdam Schiphol
(5th runway opened in 2003, although only two can be operated at any one time) and Frankfurt
Airport (3 runways). As a result, the number of destinations served by Heathrow and Gatwick
has declined relative to these other major airports.

Some airports in the UK are owned and operated by the private sector. The largest single owner
is BAA plc which owns seven airports nationwide – Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Glasgow,
Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Southampton. Others, particularly regional airports, are owned by local
consortia; Manchester Airports Group owns Manchester, Humberside, East Midlands and
Bournemouth. Local authorities or regional development agencies are often shareholders in their
local airport. Ten airports in Scotland are owned by the Scottish Executive (through ministers)
and run by Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.

Regional airports
Flights from regional airports fall into four main categories: domestic point to point services
connecting UK cities, ‘feeder’ services to the South East airports, scheduled shorthaul flights to
Europe and charter services8. With increased congestion at London airports and the development
of new ‘no-frills’ airlines, the number of international destinations serviced by regional airports
has risen. The combined effect of these developments has meant that many transfer passengers

6
Ten year statistics, BAA plc (see www.baa.co.uk/main/corporate/about_baa_frame.html).
7
Heathrow does have a third runway, but this is very much smaller than the two main runways and is rarely used.
8
Some regional airports also operate intercontinental flights (e.g. from Birmingham to the Indian subcontinent).
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Aviation in the UK Page 8

are opting to change to connecting international flights outside the UK at other European hubs.
Passenger numbers at regional airports grew by 78% during the 1990s, compared with a 66%
rise in London during the same period.

Air freight
The handling of air freight at some regional airports has also increased. Nine-tenths of all the air
freight handled in the UK in 2001 passed through the top five cargo-handling airports: Heathrow,
Gatwick, East Midlands, Stansted and Manchester9. Heathrow is the market leader; in 2001,
Heathrow’s World Cargo Centre handled almost 1.2 million tonnes of freight (just over 55% of all
air freight carried in the UK10).

Airspace
In the UK, air traffic control (ATC) services are provided by National Air Traffic Services Ltd
(NATS). NATS controls virtually all civilian flights over UK airspace11 and the Eastern North
Atlantic. Control towers at individual airports ensure safe landing and take-off, while at higher
levels aircraft are passed to one of the 4 national ATC centres based at Swanwick (in
Hampshire), West Drayton (in London), Prestwick (near Glasgow) or Manchester. NATS raises
revenues by charging for use of UK airspace and through provision of airport ATC under contract
to airport operators.

Air traffic control in the UK, as in the rest of the developed world, uses radar tracking of aircraft
on fixed flight paths. Flight paths may not provide the most direct routing between two points,
but their use allows air traffic controllers to focus their attention on a limited number of air
corridors. Increases in air traffic over western Europe have led to increasing challenges for ATC,
leading to a recent decision to halve the minimum vertical separation between aircraft from
2,000ft to 1,000ft, with safety standards maintained through advanced technology. Since it was
introduced in January 2002, this development has increased capacity across Europe.

However, such increases in the capacity of flight paths cannot overcome congestion caused by
constraints on an airport’s operational capacity. In particular, landings are not currently
permitted where the horizontal distance between aircraft would be less than 3 nautical miles
(reduced to 2.5 nautical miles under limited circumstances at some airports). Delay is an
inevitable consequence of running an airport for maximum throughput. Where delays to landings
occur, ATC require aircraft to fly in vertical holding areas (stacks) at some distance from the
airport. Once separation from the previous arrival is established, ATC will direct an aircraft to
descend from the bottom of the stack to land, and all other aircraft descend to the next level in
the stack. Should stacks become congested, more stacks can operate further from the airport.

Airlines
In 1999, a report by Oxford Economic Forecasting (OEF) on the contribution of aviation to the UK
economy estimated that the aviation industry directly employs 180,000 people in the UK12. This
includes people employed by airlines, agents, aircrew, check-in staff, maintenance staff, airport
operations staff, people employed in retail and catering concessions and others such as freight
handlers, immigrations and customs staff, and people employed in on-site ancillary services such
as hotels. UK airlines themselves employed just over 82,000 people in 200113, with around
three quarters of these jobs located in the southeast of England.

9
The top five airports for cargo, given the quantities carried in 2001.
10
Civil Aviation Authority Data Unit, Airport Statistics 2001.
11
Low level airspace over some smaller aerodromes is controlled directly by those aerodromes.
12
Oxford Economic Forecasting, The contribution of the aviation industry to the UK economy ,November 1999.
13
Civil Aviation Authority Data Unit, UK Airline Personnel Employment in GB 2001.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Aviation in the UK Page 9

Indirect contributions of aviation to the UK economy

Tourism
Aviation both brings overseas tourists to the UK and allows UK citizens to holiday overseas. Indeed around
two-thirds of inbound tourists arrive by air, and these people account for three-quarters of all expenditure
of inbound tourists. However, UK citizens spend even more on overseas holidays, thus generating a
tourism deficit. The British Tourist Authority found from surveys that inbound tourists were more likely to
be deterred from entering the UK if airfares were higher, so constraints on airport capacity could widen the
tourism deficit. However, it is beyond the scope of this report to consider this issue.

Aerospace
Airlines need new aircraft and aircraft maintenance, repair and servicing services. The aerospace industry
is one of the UK’s manufacturing strengths, having two major UK companies (BAE Systems and
RollsRoyce) providing ‘best in class’ services in airframe and aircraft engine manufacture respectively.
Aerospace exports accounted for 7% of all goods exported from the UK in 2001, with a balance of trade
surplus of £2.8 billion14. Around 147,000 people are employed in the civil aerospace industry in the UK
in 2001. The turnover for the entire industry at the end of this year was over £18 billion, with the civil
market accounting for approximately 68% of this.15 Research and development are regarded by the
industry as highly important. In 2001, it invested approximately 8.2% of its annual turnover in R&D16.
This amounts to about 12% of all investment by manufacturing industries in this year17.

Business and regional development

The services provided by the aviation industry have other consequences for businesses, both in corporate
travel and the movement of goods. By providing transportation links, businesses can access larger
markets, allowing greater scope for economies of scale and exposure to competition. Regional
development authorities and the CBI also argue that good air transport links are important in attracting
inward investment. Although the connection between air transport services and regional development
appears plausible, there is little evidence for this – although island communities such as the Isle of man
and the Channel Islands report that aviation is vital for their development. Moreover, improving transport
links to a region does not necessarily improve economic prosperity in that region.

Trade
Air freight accounts for approximately 30% of goods traded by value18. This is because it is particularly
suited to carrying high-value, low-density items, such as electrical goods and pharmaceuticals. Around
30% of airfreight is currently carried in aircraft specifically designed for cargo transportation, while the
majority is placed in the holds of passenger aircraft.19 Aircraft also have the advantage of being able to
offer high-speed transit, which is particularly beneficial to those moving perishable goods and businesses
that rely on ‘just-in-time’ deliveries. Another large category is mail, in particular express documents and
packages. Specialised air freight is centred mainly at East Midlands airport.

In the ‘traditional’ scheduled market, British Airways accounts for almost half of all UK airline
activity20. However, in the past few years major changes have taken place, with the emergence
of the low-cost airlines such as EasyJet, Ryanair and BMIbaby. Due to congestion and difficulties
in obtaining slots at the larger southeast airports, low-cost carriers operate predominantly from
airports where capacity is not so constrained and fast turn-around times are possible. By
undercutting established airlines on particular routes and operating some routes that had
previously been unprofitable for air travel operators, these airlines have opened up new travel
destinations from regional airports. Low-cost airlines now make up around a sixth of UK air
travel. In addition to the domestic airlines, many overseas-owned airlines provide services from
UK airports, although the majority are supported by the London airports (e.g. over 90 airlines
operated services at Heathrow in 2001). There is also a competitive market in chartered flights
in the UK, with the main airlines carrying over 30 mppa21.

14
Department of Trade and Industry, UK Aerospace Statistics: Data supplement.
15
Society of British Aerospace Companies, UK Aerospace Facts and Figures 2001.
16
ibid
17
DTI website: http://www.dti.gov.uk/sectors_aerospace.html
18
Ecotec, The Economic Impact of the UK Aviation Industry, June 2000, Page 11.
19
Civil Aviation Authority Data Unit, Freight by aircraft configuration, 2001.
20
Civil Aviation Authority Data Unit, Size of Airlines by Available Capacity, 1999.
21
The five principal UK charter airlines rank 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th in size (by passenger numbers) among UK carriers.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Aviation in the UK Page 10

2.2 Aviation and the UK economy

The economic development of the United Kingdom in the last few decades and the general rise in
average income levels has led to an increase in demand for all goods and services. Demand for
aviation has been particularly strong and this, combined with decreases in the cost of air travel in
real terms, has resulted in the aviation sector growing faster than any other form of transport in
recent years.

In the last 20 years the number of passengers travelling in and out of the UK has increased three-
fold. Typical annual growth rates over this period have been around 6%. Similar growth levels
have been experienced in most developed countries. Average annual growth rates have declined
recently: BAA reported growth of only 3.9% for 2002. However, it is unclear as to the causes of
this trend (e.g. the effects of the attacks on the World Trade Centre, or the result of constraints on
airport capacity).

Aviation contributes directly to the UK economy through the turnover and profits of airports and
airlines. The OEF study estimated that in 1998 these sectors contributed approximately £10.2
billion – around 1.4% of gross domestic product (GDP) – and directly supported around 180,000
jobs. It also pointed out that aviation also contributes to the UK economy indirectly through:
• tourism
• the manufacture of aircraft and components
• regional development through improved transport links
• trade, particularly through handling air freight.

The box on the previous page outlines these contributions. OEF estimated that these indirect
contributions gave rise to an additional 370,000 jobs – bringing the total contribution of the
aviation sector to around 550,000 jobs. In addition, the ways in which many people run their
lives and businesses have themselves changed since the growth of aviation. For example,
overseas travel is seen by some as essential for business and commerce, for cultural exchange,
etc. However, placing an economic value on these less tangible factors is problematic. Further,
it should be noted that the OEF study did not take account of the tax status of the aviation
industry, the external costs of aviation (see section 7.4), or the economic contribution of charter
airlines.

2.3 The regulatory framework

UK aviation policy is influenced strongly by a range of regulations and standards originating from
international bodies and the European Union. This section provides a brief overview of the
regulatory framework for the aviation industry.

International regulation
The Chicago Convention of 1944 established the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)
under the auspices of the UN. ICAO sets common international standards for operating
procedures and technical specifications of aircraft. Member states are bound to implement ICAO
standards, and breaches of these standards can lead to legal action against the offending state by
ICAO. The UK is represented at ICAO by the Government. The airline industry participates as an
observer through the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the manufacturing industry
through the International Coordinating Committee of Aviation Industry Associations (ICCA/A),
while environmental NGOs are represented through the International Coalition for Sustainable
Aviation (ICSA). Environmental issues are addressed by ICAO though its Committee on Aviation
Environmental Protection (CAEP), which has responsibility for formulating policy and standards
on aircraft noise and emissions.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Aviation in the UK Page 11

European regulation
The European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) was established in 1955 to provide a forum for
discussion of civil aviation issues in Europe and includes among its 38 member states all
European Union states and the accession states. It works to harmonise aviation policies across
Europe. For EU member states, the European Commission (EC) is playing an increasingly
important role in aviation policy. EU legislation to implement ICAO and ECAC initiatives has led
to the EC assuming competence over some technical, safety and economic aspects of the airline
industry.

Role of the UK Government

The UK Government ensures that domestic policy and regulation meet international requirements.
National policy areas include negotiating bilateral air service agreements with countries outside
the European Economic Area, taxation, powers of airports (for example to set landing charges or
to require their users to meet environmental standards), consumer and competition issues, and
some aspects of technical, safety and environmental regulation. In practice these regulatory
functions are largely discharged by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) which is responsible for
safety regulation, economic regulation, consumer protection and airspace policy. The CAA was
established in 1972, and receives no direct Government funding; its costs are met by charges on
the UK aviation industry.

The CAA is required (under section 70 of the Transport Act 2000) to take account of guidance
given by the Secretary of State on controlling and mitigating the impacts of civil aviation.
Directions given under section 60 of the Act require the CAA to take into account “the need to
reduce, control and mitigate as far as possible the environmental impacts of civilian aircraft
operations, and in particular the annoyance and disturbance caused to the general public
arising from aircraft noise and vibration, and emissions from aircraft engines”.

In addition, the CAA is required to “maintain its capability to provide expert technical advice to
the Secretary of State on environmental matters” and to “provide a focal point for receiving and
responding to aircraft-related environmental complaints from the general public”. It also
undertakes research and provides technical support regarding the environmental impacts of
aviation for a range of clients including the DfT and regional airports such as Manchester and
Birmingham.

Under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 the Government can designate certain airports for closer
supervision by the Secretary of State. Currently Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are classified as
designated airports for noise purposes. This enables the Government to put in place noise control
and mitigation measures and to require the airports to administer operating restrictions, such as
on night flights. These three airports, together with Manchester, are also designated for the
purpose of charging22, i.e. the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) sets a price cap for these airports to
limit the amount that can be levied in airport charges for a five year period. Other airports are
not bound by this regulation. Most set their individual charges in consultation with their users.
However, under the Airports Act 1986, users are able to complain to the CAA if they feel their
charges are unreasonable.

The role of local authorities in relation to the planning of airports is discussed in Chapter 7.

22
Under the Airports Act 1986.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Aviation in the UK Page 12

Forecast growth of aviation in the UK, 1998 to 2020

700
600

millions of passengers 500

400
300
200
100
0
1998 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
source: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Air Traffic Forecasts for the UK 2000

2.4 Growth forecasts

Passengers
The Government produces periodic forecasts of future demand for air transport in the UK. The
most recent. Air Traffic Forecasts for the United Kingdom 200023, are used in the DfT’s
consultation on the future development of air traffic in the UK. To arrive at the forecasts, the DfT
assessed key drivers behind air traffic growth and models of how these are likely to evolve in
future to arrive at a forecast of future air traffic levels. The principal drivers are:
• gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the UK
• GDP growth overseas
• growth in world trade
• reductions in the real terms cost of air travel.

Different sectors of the market are modelled separately, reflecting their different dependencies on
the drivers given above. Although actual air travel rates may differ from those forecast in the
short term, perhaps due to economic recession or international instability, in the long term growth
is expected to follow the forecasts. An example is provided by the fall in air travel in 1991, due
to the Gulf War. Although air passenger movements dipped then, by 1993 movements increased
above 1990 levels and were back within the range of the forecasts.

The forecasts for growth over the next 30 years are illustrated in the figure above. They assume
unconstrained growth in air travel, i.e. that airport and airline capacity is provided to meet all
demand. They show an average annual growth rate of around 4.25%, compared with average
annual growth rates of around 5% during the 1990s. This reflects the increasing maturity of the
aviation market. Uncertainty in the forecasts arises both from uncertainties in evolution of the
drivers described above, and also because of the possibility of changes in the relationship
between these drivers and air travel over time. DfT points out, however, that past forecasts have
often underestimated demand, with demand either following the ‘high’ forecast growth curve, or
even exceeding it; particularly for forecasts made before the emergence of the low-cost airlines in
the later 1990s.

The figure shows that air passenger numbers are predicted to more than double between 2000
and 2020, and under the high forecast, could almost treble by 2030. This equates to capacity
equivalent to that which can be handled through five new runways – with three of these needed
in the south-east of England. While growth at regional airports is expected to be marginally

23
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Air Traffic Forecasts for the United Kingdom 2000.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Aviation in the UK Page 13

stronger than in the south-east, partly because the regional market is less mature than the
London market, unconstrained demand in the southeast is expected to double by 2020, and
again, under the high growth forecast, to nearly treble by 2030.

Spare capacity exists at some airports (particularly at Stansted24 and Luton) so some of the
forecast growth could be met without additional infrastructure. However, this spare capacity is
likely to be used up in the next decade, so if it were decided to provide capacity to meet the
forecast growth, new infrastructure would be necessary. Within the overall expected growth, long
and short-haul international travel are expected to grow at about the average rate over the period.
Domestic air travel is expected to grow more slowly (low-cost airlines 15% per year until 2005,
and then more slowly thereafter).

Freight
Air freight has been rapidly expanding over the past few decades but is expected to expand still
more quickly in the coming decades, driven largely by growth in the express cargo industry.
Global predictions by Airbus and ICAO suggest annual freight growth rates of 5.5% or 6% per
year over the next 20 years respectively. In the UK, air freight is expected to grow rapidly, by
around 8% per annum, over the next decade, with growth rates decreasing subsequently. Since
these growth rates are greater than those for passenger air travel, meeting this demand (if this is
seen as desirable) would mean increasing freight services using dedicated aircraft, rather than
continuing to rely heavily on passenger aircraft carrying freight in the hold25.

Uncertainties in the forecasts

The cost of air travel
Since preparing the 2000 forecasts, the DfT has acknowledged that its estimates of likely
reductions in the real cost of air travel have changed. The 2000 forecasts assumed a 1 %
reduction in real terms costs of air travel per year. However, the DfT now believe that this may
have been an underestimate. Historically, real costs have fallen by around 2% per year, and the
increasing competition brought about by the rise in low-cost airlines, together with increasing
market liberalisation internationally, suggests that this trend may continue. This would increase
demand by a further 20%, with the growth forecast for 2028 appearing earlier, by 2020. Events
such as the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, the war in Iraq and the SARS virus may
affect these trends.

Effect of including the costs of environmental damage

The forecasts also estimate the effect of a hypothetical global warming tax (see chapter 6) which
could add 10% to airline costs. This was estimated to result in a 10% reduction in demand. If
the real cost of air travel continues to decrease at a rate of 2% per year, a global warming tax
adding 10 % to the cost of air tickets would still fail to halt a doubling of demand by 2020.

Unconstrained and constrained growth

The forecasts published in 2000 outlined above are the most recent undertaken by the
Government. They are based on unconstrained growth grounded in historical trends in the
underlying demand for air travel. This unconstrained growth assumes that “there is no restriction
on the amount of additional airport and airspace capacity necessary to meet any level of future
demand.” The DfT points out in its current consultation that there are inherent uncertainties in
these forecasts, not least that deviations in the long run trend could occur in any given year as a
result of changes in the economic cycle.

24
There is room for growth at Stansted outside of peak hours
25
At present 70% of freight is carried in the holds of passenger aircraft.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Aviation in the UK Page 14

However, DfT points out that using the government’s forecasts does not imply a commitment to
the ‘predict and provide’ approach (i.e. ensuring that all forecast demand is met). Thus forecasts
are suggested as a starting point for assessment – enabling consideration of the implications of
meeting fully the increase in unconstrained demand. DfT points out that these forecasts could
then enable an appraisal of “the positive and negative impacts of that additional capacity, and
only then come to a view on what, if any, degree of expansion is appropriate.” Beyond this, the
Government will decide where the expansion should take place, but will not itself bring forward
any specific proposals for providing airport infrastructure – this is the role of the airport operators.
Thus, the Government’s role is to appraise the possible impacts of potential options in meeting
unconstrained growth, and to decide the level of acceptable growth in each region in view of the
likely impacts. Specific proposals will be subject to normal planning control procedures within
the framework of the Government’s overall policy for airport expansion (see chapter 7).
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Noise Page 15

3 Noise
3.1 Noise from aircraft
The Government acknowledges that noise can be one of the most objectionable impacts of
airport development26. The quality of life of many people living under approach or departure
flight paths can be affected by aircraft noise. These effects arise from the effect of noise on
concentration or sleep and from feelings of anger, frustration and powerlessness to control the
noise. However, while many people have expressed concerns over aircraft noise, there remain
considerable uncertainties over the precise nature of its effects. This chapter outlines the sources
of aircraft noise, how it can affect local communities and the options available to reduce noise or
mitigate its effects.

Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound (see box). However, people’s reactions to particular
sounds are highly individual and depend on many factors such as its loudness and pitch; how
often the sound occurs; its similarity to background sounds; and a range of social factors. Noise
from aviation largely comes from aircraft approaching or taking off from airports. Individual
aircraft have become quieter but flight frequencies have increased, and so noise from aircraft is
giving rise to increasing community concern. In particular, landing noise is increasing in
importance, and has become the dominant reason for complaints at some airports.

In addition those living close to very large airports may experience ‘ground noise’ from sources on
the airport such as taxiing aircraft, aircraft engine tests, generators or airside vehicular traffic.
Transport links to an airport, particularly private vehicles and trains, can also make a significant
contribution to noise around airports.

Measuring aircraft noise

As outlined in the box, the DfT estimates current and future impacts of aircraft noise by
determining the area exposed to average sound levels of 57dB(A) or more during the 16 hours
between 7am and 11pm. This 57dB(A) contour was chosen as an indicator of the onset of what
is known as community annoyance in the daytime, following a study in 1985 which showed a
good correlation of this figure with annoyance27 (see the annexe to chapter 3). The evidence
base for annoyance is being reviewed, particularly to examine whether there have been any
changes in the perception of aircraft noise since the previous study. For instance, it is apparent
that the mix and types of aircraft, their frequency of overflight, the social and economic
circumstances of affected people and general levels of environmental awareness and sensitivity
have changed since the early 1980s. The Government has therefore commissioned a three year
study to provide a firmer basis for the relationship between aircraft noise and annoyance. The
first results from this new study should be available towards the end of 2004.

3.2 Impacts of noise on people

Although very loud noise levels can cause hearing damage and deafness, the levels of sound
exposure experienced by the general public living near airports are extremely unlikely to cause
such effects. Rather, concerns focus mainly on annoyance and sleep disturbance, and on the
extent to which these affect general health and wellbeing.

26
Department for Transport 2002, Guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority on environmental objectives relating to the
exercise of its air navigation functions.
27
Brooker et al, United Kingdom Aircraft Noise Index Study (ANIS): main report – DR Report 8402. Report for the Civil
Aviation Authority on behalf of the Department of Transport, January 1985.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Noise Page 16

Measuring sound and noise

There are two main characteristics of sound:
• volume (or loudness) – the level of energy in the sound wave: the higher the energy, the louder the
sound. This is measured on the scale of decibels (dB)
• frequency (or pitch) – the rate of change of energy in the sound wave: the greater the frequency of the
sound waves, the higher the pitch of the sound that is heard.

The human ear does not detect all pitches of sound equally efficiently. Most sound measurement therefore
uses a scale which weights different pitches or frequency of sound according to human sensitivity to them.
This scale, known as the A-weighted decibel scale - dB(A) - is commonly used in assessment of
environmental noise. On this scale, an increase or decrease of 10dB(A) is perceived by the human ear as
a doubling or halving of the loudness of a sound. Sounds detected in the environment, however, are
seldom pure tones of a given volume or frequency, but are mostly mixtures of different sounds of various
(and varying) volume and frequency. Combinations of pitch and volume from a number of sources create
the tone, or quality of the sound – e.g. the ‘roar’ of an aircraft engine or the ‘swish’ of passing traffic.
Indeed, aircraft noise is measured with reference to the Effective Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) which has
been devised to take account of the different tones of aircraft noise as well as the time duration of the
noise events. Thus, all noise metrics referred to hereafter are based on the EPNL definitions.

To quantify sound levels which vary with time a scale known as equivalent continuous noise level or Leq is
used. Leq is a measure of the average sound level over a particular time period. For example, an Leq, 24h
of 57dB(A) indicates that the sound energy produced by the noise source is equivalent to a constant sound
of 57dB(A) over 24 hours. Variants of Leq measure the average sound over particular time periods, such
as the 16 ‘daytime’ hours between 7am and 11pm. Other variants, such as Lden, try to take account of
increased sensitivity to noise at certain times by giving an increased weighting to noise events occurring in
the evening or at night. Lmax, measures the maximum sound level of a particular event.

Aircraft noise at airports

The Government considers noise to have the potential for community annoyance above a level of 57dB(A)
Leq 16 hour. Contours of noise from airports are drawn, showing the area exposed to average sound levels
of 57 dB(A) or more between 7am and 11pm (see figure). Contour areas are then compared with
population data to determine the number of residents within that contour. Contours are calculated by
summing and averaging the noise from arriving and departing aircraft. Calculations of future noise
exposure must also take account of the known or planned flight paths to and from the airport and, since
different types of aircraft make different amounts of noise, the known or estimated fleet mix at that airport.

Noise contours around Heathrow airport in 2001 (Leq, 16hr average mode)

Source: Department for Transport

Annoyance
Noise can lead people to feel stressed and angry. It may interfere with conversations and leisure
activities in the home, disrupt activities requiring concentration, and discourage people from
using outdoor spaces. In addition to the pitch and volume of the noise itself, a number of other
factors may affect whether it is viewed as ‘annoying’:
• occurrence of exposure – if exposure to noise occurs often throughout the day, this may be
more annoying than exposure to a small number of particularly noisy events, even where the
total sound energy is the same.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Noise Page 17

Noise annoyance
The passion and frustration which aircraft noise may elicit are reflected in the views of some individuals
exposed to aircraft noise. Responses to social surveys around airports and to airport expansion plans
indicate that many people are annoyed by aircraft noise. It is worth noting that the comments below are
from people outside of the 57 dB(A) contour threshold for community annoyance.

Some residents’ views (source: HACAN Clear Skies and “Flying into Trouble”, Airport Watch)
• “Each time I hear the increasing decibels of an approaching aircraft it builds up like a slow torture,
especially in the early hours of dawn….. The lack of government control over this monster motorway in
the sky is the worst aspect.” (Resident of Greenwich)
• “For me there was no problem until some time in 1999 when, without any warning I was put on the
flight path into Heathrow, with the planes passing about every two minutes. Each plane starts with a
dull whine from afar which builds to a distinct roar as it gets close. This is often incessant throughout
the day. By this I mean that I get woken between 5am and 6am and the noise continues more or less
unbroken until sometime between 10 and 11pm.” (Resident of Blackheath).
• “Aircraft passing overhead in the middle of the night cause me to awake suddenly. Often I am unable
to get back to sleep before I hear the next aircraft. This is a regular occurrence every night of the week,
and it is worse in the summer unless I keep my window firmly shut.” (Resident living several miles from
East Midlands Airport).
• “When we moved here 16 years ago it was a beautiful quiet rural area. But now we have a huge
number of aircraft flying low overhead, destroying our peace and tranquillity.” (Resident of Edenbridge,
10 miles from Gatwick).

Conversely, others report satisfaction with aircraft noise:

“As I write, I have my French windows open and I enjoy watching the planes coming in, feeding the life of
the London I love. With Heathrow just down the road, I know I can easily catch a plane myself,
experience the pleasure of visiting friends abroad or having a holiday before flying back again over my
house….and for the benefit of any newcomers to our city, planes these days seem to be a lot quieter than
they were back in the Sixties.” (Inhabitant of west London. Evening Standard letters, 30 April 2002).

• fear of accidents – concerns about air crashes may increase some people’s sensitivity to
aircraft noise. For example, annoyance around Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport was greater
than at other comparable airports, due partly to fear of crashes following an accident in 1992
where an aircraft crashed into a residential building in an Amsterdam suburb. Similarly, noise
complaints at Heathrow rose following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.
• fear of the future – especially about future growth in air travel and potential increases in the
frequency of flights. A key factor here is whether local people feel they can trust an airport to
stick to its commitments about the numbers of passengers and flights it will handle.
• lack of control – inability to alter or escape from the noise source may make it more annoying.
Vacuum cleaners are noisier than an aircraft overhead, but can be switched off at will.

Aircraft noise provokes highly individual and often emotional responses, examples of which are
given in the box above. The subjectivity of responses to aircraft noise makes it difficult to
quantify the relationship between noise levels and annoyance. However, there is general
agreement that noise levels below 50dB(A) Leq are unlikely to cause community annoyance but
that some people will be severely annoyed at levels of 55dB(A) Leq28. In the UK, the DfT uses a
level of 57dB(A) Leq as an indicator of the onset of community annoyance in daytime29.

There are however, some questions over the strength of the relationship between annoyance and
Leq, with some evidence for a more robust relationship with the maximum sound level (Lmax)30.
Thus the World Health Organisation (WHO) has called for long term studies to determine the best
noise indicator. Similarly, there are people inside the contour who will not be affected by the

28
World Health Organisation, Guidelines for Community Noise, 1999.
29
DfT states that this is equivalent to the WHO level of 55 dB(A), the difference being in how it is measured and how
adjustments are made for the fact that noise from airborne sources behaves differently from those on the ground.
30
Hume K. and Watson, A., The human health impacts of aviation. In: Upham, P et al (eds) Towards Sustainable
Aviation. Earthscan, 2003.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Noise Page 18

noise, and also those outside who will be affected. It should not be used, therefore, as a precise
gauge of who will and who will not be affected.

Sleep disturbance
Interference with sleep patterns is frequently reported by those living near airports operating night
flights. A recent study of residents in high noise areas close to Heathrow, Gatwick, East
Midlands and Coventry airports found 1 in 5 respondents were ‘extremely annoyed’ by aircraft
noise at night, with between 1 in 5 and 1 in 10 often reporting difficulty getting to sleep or being
woken early31. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the UK Government’s
procedure for decision-making about night flights was flawed, and that this flaw amounted to a
“violation of the respect for private and family life and the home” under the European
Convention on Human Rights. This judgement did not state that night flights themselves were a
violation of human rights. The Government is appealing against the court’s decision.

Definitive relationships between noise levels and sleep patterns have yet to be established outside
laboratory conditions. There is also considerable uncertainty as to how, if at all, sleep
disturbance affects long term health. Although laboratory studies have demonstrated that noise
can effect sleeping patterns (time to fall asleep, changes in sleep pattern, night time waking) and
have physiological effects during sleep (increased heart rate and blood pressure), studies in
sleepers' homes demonstrate much less disturbance from noise, possibly due to sleepers getting
used to night time noise. One study suggested that the average sleeper was woken by aircraft
noise events of over 80dB(A) on only 1 in 75 occasions32. It also found a wide variation in
responses to night noise – the most sensitive people could be disturbed twice as often as the
average and the least sensitive half as often as the average. Moreover, focusing mainly on
awakenings may be misleading as a sleeper’s perception of whether he or she has had a good
night's sleep also depends on the time taken to fall asleep, the total number of hours sleep and
the time of awakening in the morning. However, the study found that people’s subjective
indications of their quality of sleep corresponded well with measured disturbance. This suggests
that this method provides more reliable evidence than ‘one-shot’ special survey methods.

The World Health Organisation guidelines on community noise recommend that if all negative
effects on sleep are to be avoided, indoor noise levels should be 30dB(A) Leq, while no single
noise event should exceed 45dB(A). Noise levels in many suburban and urban areas already
exceed such levels, with indoor Leq noise levels in urban areas at night being typically around
40dB(A). Average indoor noise levels from individual aircraft movements were recorded as
around 52dB(A) in a recent study of aircraft noise at night in the Manchester area33. Overall,
aircraft noise affects some people at night, although the evidence suggests that the level of sleep
disturbance is minor for most people exposed to noise levels around the 57 dB(A) threshold for
community annoyance. However, questions remain over whether it is fair to expose these few
people to noise that will disturb them while the majority sleep soundly. This became a cause
celebre is Sydney (see the Annexe to chapter 3), where such ‘noise concentration’ was described
by a Senate Committee as “a form of discrimination”. Nevertheless, significant uncertainties still
remain over the relationship between noise and sleep, and the effects of sleep disturbance on
long term wellbeing24.

31
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Perceptions of Aircraft Noise, Sleep and Health,
December 2000.
32
Ollerhead et al, Report of a field study of aircraft noise and sleep disturbance, Civil Aviation Authority for the
Department of Transport, 1992.
33
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Aircraft Noise and Sleep – 1999 UK Trial Methodology
Study Report, November 2000.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Noise Page 19

Effects on health
Most investigations of the effect of noise on adult health other than hearing have focused on
potential effects on the cardiovascular system. Individual loud noise events cause a temporary
increase in blood pressure and heart rate. Whether frequent exposure to noise events has a long-
term effect on these factors is open to question. According to the World Health Organisation,
evidence suggests at most a "weak link" between long-term exposure to noise of around 65dB(A)
Leq and cardiovascular effects. However, the WHO also cautions that if large numbers of people
are exposed to this sort of noise level, even a small increased risk could result in significant
numbers of extra cases. WHO suggests that current evidence is as yet inconclusive and that
further research is necessary before it can offer any guidelines. There is also some limited
evidence that environmental noise is related to the development of existing mental health
disorders, although noise is not believed to cause mental illness.

Effects on educational achievement

There is evidence to suggest that environmental noise may affect children’s school performance.
A study in Munich reported poor reading performance and long term memory among pupils near
the airport. Performances improved after the airport closed, but test scores of children living near
a new replacement airport fell. Similarly, a study in New York found reading impairments in
schoolchildren exposed to over 65 dB(A) Leq. But a study of test results from children around
Heathrow airport was inconclusive, once socio-economic factors had been taken into account. It
is not clear whether the effects could result directly from exposure to noise, or from the
cumulative loss of teaching time, if teaching is frequently disrupted by loud noise events.

Overall effects of noise

Much of the research in this area is either contradictory or inconclusive. This is likely to be due
to insufficient knowledge in this highly specialised area, and hence many, including the WHO
have called for considerably more research. Evidence to date does suggest that most people
exposed to aircraft noise are not adversely affected, but that more vulnerable groups may be at
increased risk; particularly those with pre-existing sleep problems, stress or mental health
problems24.

3.3 Current and future aircraft noise in the UK

Current noise levels
Over the last 30 years, noise from individual aircraft has reduced. Further, the total numbers of
people exposed to excessive noise have declined over recent decades, with some estimates
suggesting that in the early 1970s, as many as 2 million people were exposed to noise above the
threshold for community annoyance. Therefore, for all but the most rapidly expanding airports,
such as Stansted, the effect of gradual introduction of quieter aircraft and phasing out of noisier
ones has so far outweighed increases in aircraft traffic, leading to an overall reduction in noise.
However, at present, the Government has estimated that close to half a million people in the UK
remain exposed to aviation noise levels above the threshold for community annoyance (57dB(A)
Leq). Of these, four-fifths are in the south-east of England, with around 300,000 people located
within the 57dB(A) Leq contour, and hence potentially affected by aircraft movements at
Heathrow. But, as noted above, while some may not be affected living inside the contour, others
living outside the contour may well be affected.

Future exposure
The largest airports are already operating close to their operating capacity limits. Thus, with no
expansion of infrastructure, the noise climate would be expected to improve over the next
decades as quieter aircraft come into service. This is illustrated in the figure on the next page,
which shows the noise climate around various UK airports under different growth scenarios.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Noise Page 20

Forecast noise exposure from expansion at UK airports under three scenarios

350
300

thousands of people 250

2000
200
2030 central
150
2030 worst
100
50
0
ow

am
r

ed
te

c
wi
hr

es

st
gh

an
at

at
ch

in

G
He

St
rm
an
M

Bi

Source: based on figures quoted in Department for Transport, The future development of air transport in the United
Kingdom: a national consultation, July 2002 (and second edition, February 2003).

However, providing new infrastructure, such as additional runways, would mean that the effects
of the increase in aircraft movements could outstrip improvements in technology and thus
increase noise exposure. Indeed, the Government’s consultation documents estimate that an
additional runway at Heathrow would double passenger numbers by 2030, leading to a further
25,000 people exposed to noise levels above 57dB(A) Leq , even with quieter aircraft.

In contrast, European noise policy aims to ensure that, on average, there should be no short term
increase in the numbers of people exposed to high levels of noise and that these numbers should
be reduced in the long term. Thus, if the numbers of people exposed to aircraft noise increase in
line with the forecasts, compliance with EU policy would require equivalent reductions in the
numbers exposed to noise elsewhere (and perhaps from other sources). There is at present no
statutory requirement to comply with this policy.

3.4 Reducing the impacts of noise from aviation

Regulating aircraft noise
There are three main tiers of regulation governing aircraft noise in the UK: international, EU and
national (see box). At international level, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) sets
progressively tighter certification standards (known as chapters) for noise emissions from civil
aircraft. In addition to these specific requirements, the ICAO requires members to adopt a
“balanced approach” to noise management which looks beyond individual aircraft to :
• reducing aircraft noise at source
• land-use planning
• changes to operational procedures
• restrictions on the use of the noisiest aircraft.

Reducing aircraft noise at source

As explained above, all subsonic aircraft34 currently operating in the EU must comply with the
ICAO Chapter 3 noise standard agreed in 1977. From 2006, all new aircraft must also comply
with the tighter Chapter 4 standard, which represents a reduction of 10dB on measurements for
Chapter 3 aircraft.

34
with a take-off weight of more than 34 tonnes – i.e. excluding light aircraft.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Noise Page 21

Regulating aircraft noise in the UK

International
The International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO) sets standards, known as ‘Chapters’, for the noise emitted
by civil aircraft, to which member countries’ fleets must conform. The chapters set maximum acceptable
noise levels for different aircraft during landing and take-off. Since 1st April 2002, Chapter 2 aircraft
(weighing more than 34 tonnes) have been prohibited from operating in the EU unless granted specific
exemptions. However, some civilian aircraft were converted from older and noisier Chapter 2 aircraft by
retrofitting of ‘hushkits’ to the engines, and only just conform to the Chapter 3 noise standards. The ICAO
has recently agreed a new ‘Chapter 4’ standard which will be mandatory for all new aircraft manufactured
from 2006. Although best available technology already enables aircraft to achieve 18dB below the current
Chapter 3 standard, the Chapter 4 standard has been set at only 10dB below that of Chapter 3.
Furthermore, this 10dB reduction is an aggregate of reductions in noise measured at three standardised
locations close to an airport, and so corresponds to a smaller reduction at each measurement point.

European
The EU is increasingly assuming responsibility for the regulation of aircraft noise standards. For example,
an EU directive banned Chapter 2 aircraft from landing in the EU from 1st April 2002. Two further EU
Directives are relevant to aircraft noise:
• EC Directive 2002/30 repealed an earlier directive which had sought to ban ‘hushkitted’ aircraft from
operating in the EU on the grounds that their Chapter 3 compliance was marginal. Considerable
protests, largely from US airlines operating hush kitted Chapter 2 aircraft, led to its repeal. However,
this replacement directive does enable large or city-based airports to prevent aircraft which only just
meet the Chapter 3 standards, such as hushkitted aircraft, from landing and taking off. However, other
possible mitigation methods must also be considered, as in ICAO’s balanced approach. The directive
must be implemented in the UK by end of September 2003.
• EC Directive 2002/49 ('environmental noise directive') requires member states to create 'noise maps' of
noise from all transport sources in urban areas by 2007, and to adopt action plans to manage noise by
2008. The directive also aims to harmonise methods for measuring noise across the EU.

National
The Government takes the view that in most cases airport operators, working in conjunction with local
airport consultative committees, are best placed to resolve any local noise issues. Unless any conditions
on noise are imposed on the airport concerned as part of the planning system, most UK airports are not
required to impose any noise limits. However, the 1982 Civil Aviation Act does grant the Government
powers to introduce noise control measures, including mitigation, if the Government believes local
solutions are not succeeding. Based on their national significance, Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are
currently ‘designated airports’ where the Government is responsible for noise matters – for example
imposing restrictions on night flights. BAA can fine aircraft which breach noise limits.

Most aircraft coming into service now already comply with Chapter 4. However, these standards
are regulated with reference to the sum of measurements taken at three separate locations.
Thus, in terms of perceived loudness at any one measurement location, Chapter 4 compliance
could correspond to a reduction in noise energy of around 3dB – i.e. a halving of the sound
energy. Aircraft are replaced roughly every 20-35 years (although in Europe the average is
around 8 years), and hence further reductions in noise at source will require restrictions in the
use of the noisiest Chapter 3 aircraft or incentives to use quieter, Chapter 4 compliant aircraft.
However, there is no agreed date for phasing out Chapter 3 aircraft.

Over the past 30 years, improvements in aircraft technology have resulted in a reduction in noise
of around 20dB. These improvements are continuing, with modern aircraft being successively
quieter than their predecessors. Around a fifth of the current fleet already achieves a noise target
14dB below the new Chapter 3 standards, and around half of all British Airways’ aircraft coming
into service now achieve noise levels of 14 dB below the Chapter 3 standard. By 2004 British
Airways expects 90% of its fleet to meet these levels of performance. Indeed, RollsRoyce reports
that modern aircraft can achieve 18-24dB below the Chapter 3 standard. However, further
improvements beyond the forthcoming Chapter 4 standards will be increasingly difficult to
achieve, although there is much pressure to develop aircraft with significantly lower noise level
than is currently possible.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Noise Page 22

Aircraft noise arises from both engines and the movement of turbulent air over the physical
structure (airframe) of an aircraft. To date, noise reduction has focused mainly on reducing
engine noise. This is now sufficiently low that tackling noise from the airframe, which may be
more challenging to reduce, is becoming as important. The Advisory Council for Aeronautics
Research in Europe (ACARE) is a group bringing together the key players in Europe’s aerospace
industry. ACARE has set a target for the industry to halve perceived aircraft noise by 2020.
However, there is no guarantee that this target will be met. Current technology points to the
target being achievable, but translating laboratory-tested concepts into a fully functioning aircraft
raises challenges – not least that the noise performance of a new aircraft is difficult to
characterise fully before it is built and flown.

There is general agreement within the industry that substantial noise reductions beyond the
current ICAO required reduction of 10 dB (from Chapter 3 to Chapter 4 standards) will be difficult
to achieve without radical changes to aircraft design. However, such a technological
breakthrough is likely to need substantial research funding to succeed, and questions arise over
the ability of current drivers to encourage substantial further investment in noise reduction
technologies. The fact that most aircraft currently being manufactured already meet the 2006
Chapter 4 noise standard, suggests that international standards for aircraft noise now follow,
rather than drive, technological developments. Although the aviation industry might argue that
the expectation of stricter international standards in future acts as a driver to research,
experience to date indicates that ICAO is unlikely to introduce standards which are not already
achievable. Thus, unless greater incentives to reduce noise are introduced (e.g. noise-related
landing and take-off charges), the current regulatory regime is unlikely to motivate a substantial
increase in noise research.

Land-use planning
Many UK airports are already located in densely populated areas so the potential for land-use
planning to reduce exposure to noise from existing airports is limited. However, planning does
have a role to play in considering new developments near airports or development of new
airports, and indeed, airlines and airport operators argue that its role has been largely neglected
to date, and that more could be done under the ICAO balanced approach. Section 7.3 of this
report outlines how the planning system can tackle some of the environmental issues associated
with airports. The remainder of this section deals specifically with how planning can address
noise.

Government planning guidance advises that planning permission for housing should normally be
refused in areas exposed to noise from any source louder than 66dB(A) Leq during the day (and
57dB(A) at night). At noise levels between 57 and 66dB(A) Leq mitigation measures should be a
condition on planning permission, but noise below 57dB(A) Leq need not be considered35.
Planners are required to consider possible future changes to the noise climate. As outlined in
section 3.3, areas around some UK airports are projected to experience an improvement in noise
climate over the next decade, followed by a deterioration thereafter. Thus, in considering the
potential for new airport development, future noise exposure is likely to feature as a key issue.

Another option could be to zone areas of land around airports as being unacceptable for domestic
habitation given current or expected future noise levels. Here, for existing developments,
compensation could be paid, sound insulation provided, or assistance in relocating could be
offered. While the last option could increase pressure on land elsewhere, and mean longer travel
distances to the airport, it could also release areas of land for uses that are less noise sensitive

35
Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Planning Policy Guidance note 24: Planning and Noise,
August 2001.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Noise Page 23

than housing – such as offices or commercial development, which may increase the efficiency of
travel from these facilities to and from the airport. For future developments, it might be possible
to zone land-uses to exclude residential areas and other noise sensitive land-uses such as schools
and hospitals, and to encourage commercial developments.

Changes to operational procedures

Take-off
The management of airspace for safety, navigation and logistical reasons leads to a concentration
of air traffic along a small number of specific airways. In addition, the CAA points out that it has
long been acknowledged that concentrating departures along the least number of possible routes
generates the best environmental outcome. However, the Sydney airport experience (see Annexe
to Chapter 3) raises questions about whether this assumption still holds true. The area on the
ground affected by noise from departing aircraft depends both on the flight path followed, and on
the rate of ascent of the aircraft. Take-off flight paths in the UK generally follow noise preferential
routes (NPRs), which are chosen to overfly the least populated areas after take-off (although the
CAA has suggested that some cases military airspace could prevent optimum NPRs from being
used in some circumstances). Climb rates depend on the performance of different types of
aircraft36. In some cases airspace design considerations may prevent ideal take-off paths from
being followed. For example, an NPR for aircraft heading south after take-off from Heathrow
passes to the west of Gatwick airport. Flights on some of Gatwick’s NPRs are therefore
prevented from climbing too rapidly as they have to pass under the Heathrow traffic.

At an airport with little population close to the end of the runway, noise impacts will be
minimised by using maximum thrust on take-off, despite the extra noise this generates close to
the runway. On flight paths which overfly residential areas soon after take-off, overall noise
impact may be reduced if less thrust is used, despite the slower climb rate. Hence the optimum
take-off procedure in noise reduction terms for any one airport will depend on the land-use and
environment around that airport, and on whether that airport’s policy is to concentrate noise on a
small number of residents (as is usual) or to distribute it more widely (as in Sydney).

An alternative may be to move away from the traditional notion of concentrating departing traffic
into a small number of tracks and to allow them to fan out after takeoff along many different
tracks. This would have the effect of reducing the noise burden and the frequency of overflying
for those living under current flight paths. This would expose people within a wider area to some
level of aircraft noise that they had not experienced before. If this ‘noise sharing’ pattern were to
be adopted (as it has in Sydney), the CAA would need to be assured that it complied with the
Government’s directions on environmental objectives, while also meeting their requirements for
operational safety and efficiency.

Landing
The Government acknowledges that where airports are close to populated areas, landing noise is
increasingly regarded as a more serious problem than departure noise, due to the need for final
approach paths to operate in straight lines, thus giving little flexibility in deciding which areas will
be overflown. As aircraft must align their final approach paths at some distance from a runway,
it is not currently possible to develop noise preferential routes for arriving aircraft. Procedural
improvements to reduce noise from arriving aircraft have therefore focussed almost exclusively on
a procedure known as continuous descent approach (CDA). A CDA is an approach path in which
an aircraft descends smoothly from around 6,000ft, usually at an angle of around 3 degrees,
rather than descending through a series of level flight and steeper descents.

36
At Heathrow, for example, after passing a point 6.5 km from the point on the runway at which most aircraft began their
roll for take off, they must achieve a maximum climb rate of 4%.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Noise Page 24

The CDA allows aircraft to operate on low power and with low drag, and hence it minimises noisy
changes in engine tone which may be annoying on the ground, and reduces average noise on the
ground by up to 6dB(A). The main benefits are felt between 12 and 30km from touchdown.
CDA also ensures that on the initial approach to the airport, the aircraft is no lower than is strictly
necessary. At the designated airports (Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted), considerable effort has
been devoted recently to increasing use of CDAs. At Gatwick, for example, around 70% of
daytime approaches now use CDA, while at Heathrow the figure is 75%. This improvement has
been achieved largely through air traffic control, airports, airlines and pilots working together to
increase awareness of the importance of CDA37. At night, CDA adherence is better. Although
safety and operational reasons may restrict opportunities to follow a CDA, there is clearly scope
for further improvement. This needs good co-operation between ATC, airport operators and pilots
(some of whom may be unfamiliar with CDA).

A further possible option could be to move towards steeper descent angles so that aircraft are
higher at any particular distance from the airport during their final approach, although this is
unlikely in the short term. Larger civil jets cannot land at steeper descent angles than the
standard 3 degrees without compromising safety, but future generations of these jets may be
designed to allow steeper approach angles. However, many smaller aircraft can follow steeper
final approach paths (as at London City airport), so they also require shorter runways, which
might then be an option. However, current air traffic control procedures would find it difficult to
manage aircraft approaching at different angles safely, so even if future aircraft designs and safety
regulations did allow steeper approaches, it would be challenging to use these procedures while
older and larger aircraft were using the same runway. Thus, it could be feasible to use longer
runways for larger aircraft approaching at 3 degrees, while also using shorter runways for smaller
aircraft approaching at say 5 degrees.

In guidance to the CAA on its environmental objectives, the Government anticipated that final
approach tracks will, for the foreseeable future, remain aligned with the runway. However, it
does suggest that if technologies were developed that allowed curved approaches or variable rates
of descent, these could only be considered if they did not lead to a significant loss of capacity. In
the meantime, relocating stacks to less noise sensitive locations may be an option worth
considering.

Restrictions on the use of the noisiest aircraft

Clearly restricting use of the noisiest aircraft would reduce the noise burden around airports. As
described in the box on the previous page, the designated airports already impose restrictions on
certain categories of aircraft at night. However, under the new EU directive on aircraft noise (see
box on page 23), restrictions on the noisiest aircraft can be introduced only after the various other
possible options (such as land-use controls and changes in procedures) have been considered.

At Heathrow, British Airways voluntarily banned departures of its aircraft after 11.30 at night and
is aiming to avoid arrivals before 4.45 in the morning. In addition, British Airways has stated
that the opening of Terminal 5 at Heathrow will not lead to any further night flights. The box on
the next page outlines the noise controls at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

Mitigating noise
In addition to controls on aircraft take off and landing, another approach is to minimise the
impact of noise within buildings. This can be achieved through sound proofing. Also, providing
compensation to those affected or, in extreme cases, offering to purchase affected properties can

37
Indeed, BAA has specified in its contract for air traffic control services with Nats certain performance indicators that
require where possible approaching aircraft to operate on CDAs.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Noise Page 25

Noise control at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted

As designated airports, noise control measures at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are under the direct
control of the Department for Transport. A variety of measures has been put in place at these airports to
encourage or require minimum noise procedures. These are monitored and enforced by use of a noise and
track keeping (NTK) system. The NTK system matches data from noise monitors to radar data on aircraft
flight paths to monitor the noise levels and track keeping of individual aircraft.

Take-off noise
Aircraft must reach a minimum height of 1,000ft by 6.5km from the start of their take-off roll, and must
not exceed a certain noise limit as measured by a noise monitor at that point. Airlines whose aircraft
breach these conditions are fined (BAA imposes fines of £500 or £1,000, depending on the seriousness of
the breach), with the money used for noise mitigation or donated to local community funds. The airports
also monitor how well aircraft keep to the noise preferential routes (NPRs) after take-off. There are
possible sanctions against aircraft which do not keep to the tracks, but these have generally not been
needed. Instead, airports work closely with the airlines, publish data on airlines’ track-keeping
performance and encourage the sharing of good practice between airlines. Airports report that this
approach has resulted in improvements in track-keeping. At Gatwick less than 1% of departing aircraft
now leave the designated routes. The figure for Heathrow is 3%. This is undoubtedly improves the noise
climate for those not living under the NPRs; whether those living under the tracks view it as an
improvement is questionable.

Landing noise
The Government has concluded that setting noise limits for arriving aircraft is not feasible. Instead, aircraft
are strongly encouraged to adopt CDA procedures, and a Code of Practice (with considerable support from
the airlines) sets out procedures which should be followed to minimise arrivals noise.

Night noise
There are restrictions on the total number of aircraft movements at night (11.30pm-6am), the types of
aircraft which can be used at night and a noise ‘quota’ for the total noise allowed at night at each airport
over a whole season (summer or winter) – in effect, the noisiest aircraft are banned between 11pm and
7am. Aircraft used for night movements are assigned points according to how noisy they are, which count
towards the noise quota. This can provide a powerful incentive to airlines to operate aircraft in the lowest
categories possible for the size and type of aircraft, particularly for long-haul routes to the Far East, whose
flights leave the UK in the late evening and arrive in the early morning.

Industry concerns
The departure noise limits described above date from December 2000, when noise limits were tightened
from previous levels. Introducing the tighter regulations was fraught. An attempt by the Government to
tighten the noise limits in 1996 was challenged by the International Air Transport Association (IATA); a
new 1997 Government consultation paper was also challenged by IATA; a supplementary consultation
paper followed in 1999 and the new noise limits were finally brought introduced early in 2001. Principal
industry concerns were that the noise restrictions would not necessarily reduce overall noise impact on
departure. Also that meeting the noise restrictions and height targets would require reductions in take-off
weight for larger, long haul aircraft, resulting in greater costs per passenger for the flight. The industry has
argued that some flights might no longer be financially viable. On night restrictions, the British Air
Transport Association (BATA) has commented that, despite aircraft at Heathrow becoming quieter (and
hence attracting fewer quota points), no additional night flights have been allowed. Thus BATA reports
that there is little incentive for airlines to operate fewer or quieter aircraft than the current regulations
require. Indeed, the A380 aircraft which will soon come into service at Heathrow will operate with fuel
efficiency reduced by a few percent to comply with night-time noise requirements. This increases costs of
these aircraft operating at all times.

On 8 April 2003, the Department for Transport announced a consultation on the night noise restrictions,
proposing to extend the arrangements until October 2005.

mitigate the impacts. Each of these options raises difficulties in determining the ‘cut-off’ above
which the compensation is offered. The box on page 28 outlines the sound insulation scheme
around Manchester airport.

Further measures to reduce aviation noise

A number of further policy instruments could be used to reduce noise from aircraft, including:
• voluntary agreements e.g. airport/local community agreements on number or types of day
and night flights, airport/airline agreements on procedures to minimise noise
• regulation e.g. statutory and operational requirements on track keeping, take-off noise limits,
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Noise Page 26

Manchester Airport sound insulation grant scheme

Manchester Airport has operated a sound insulation grant scheme since 1972. The scheme provides
financial assistance towards the installation of soundproofing glazing in areas most affected by aircraft
noise. The scheme boundary is based on a 'noise contour' that identifies those areas which are said to be
affected by moderate to high levels of noise. The scheme currently includes 26,000 domestic properties.

In 1999, following wide-ranging discussions with its neighbours, local councillors, the airport consultative
committee, environmental health officers and acoustic industry specialists, the sound insulation grant
scheme was reviewed. The new scheme continues to offer secondary glazing to over 26,000 properties
within the boundary, However, in response to the consultation feedback received, an 'inner zone' of nearly
1,000 properties are now eligible for repeat grants, an option of replacement high performance double-
glazing and acoustic loft insulation.

or number of night flights, possibly enforced via fines on offending airlines or airports
• economic instruments e.g. landing charges varying according to the noise performance of
aircraft, or airline record on track keeping.

The designated airports (Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted), where noise control is the
responsibility of the Government, have already introduced a number of such measures to reduce
noise impact. These, described in the box on page 27, provide an example of the sorts of
regulatory measures which could be introduced more widely and the difficulties encountered in
implementing them. In addition, the Government produced a consultation paper in 2000 on
control of noise from civil aircraft38 which set out a number of options to give more powers to
local airports or local authorities to take action on aircraft noise. The Government’s conclusions
following the consultation will be published with the forthcoming white paper on air transport
policy. The main consultation proposals, and responses to them, are described in the box on the
next page. Responses to the consultation provide a useful overview of the different stakeholders’
attitudes to regulation on aircraft noise. The key questions raised are discussed below.

Local or national control

Current Government policy is that noise problems should be resolved at a local level. Only where
this has failed should Government step in to take direct control of noise mitigation measures, or
where airports are of national importance (as with the major London airports). This policy
acknowledges that the noise impact of any particular aircraft type or procedure will vary from
airport to airport. For example, the number of people overflown during landing and take-off at
Heathrow may be a hundred times more than that at a regional airport. Moreover, possible
mitigation procedures vary from airport to airport. At some airports, air traffic management
considerations or physical obstacles may restrict use of CDA procedures or noise preferential
routes. In addition, the balance to be struck between environmental protection and the social
and economic importance of flights may vary across regions.

On the other hand, a local approach can give rise to a proliferation of many different local
regulations and requirements that could require airlines to follow different procedures at different
airports. Because operating procedures are already highly constrained by international standards,
airlines may not in practice have much freedom to alter their procedures to fit the requirements of
particular airports. The development of regulations introduced at the London airports themselves
has drawn on advice from the DfT’s Aircraft Noise Monitoring Advisory Committee (ANMAC)
concerning the feasibility of the proposed measures, which are introduced only after extensive
consultation. Smaller airports may not have the expertise or resources to devise noise mitigation
practices of their own.

38
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Consultation paper on control of noise from civil aircraft,
August 2000.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Noise Page 27

Consultation on control of noise from civil aircraft

The consultation paper in 2000 proposed giving new powers to airport operators to require their users to
follow noise reduction practices. In particular, the paper proposed:
• giving airports stronger powers to enforce noise control arrangements, for example by imposing
penalties on aircraft which do not keep to noise preferential routes on take-off
• requiring airports to prepare strategies to tackle noise, with local authorities having enforcement powers
• making clear that airports may vary charges depending not only on the levels of aircraft noise but also
on compliance with mitigation efforts, for example compliance with noise preferential routes.

Consultees’ comments
Environmental and residential organisations generally supported the proposals, although with reservations
on some practical aspects. Local authority responses were mixed, with some considering that it was not
their role to enforce noise control schemes. Airlines and airport users supported the current, largely
voluntary schemes. Key issues raised by consultees included:
• planning – planning applications may be granted subject to conditions relating to noise. New
requirements on noise could conflict with these
• local or national control – some argued that a national or regional framework for noise mitigation was
better than a local approach, both to provide longer term certainty for airlines and to avoid distortion of
competition between airports
• competition – noise limits which some aircraft types would have difficulty in meeting could conflict with
ICAO regulations forbidding unfairly favouring one aircraft type over another
• enforcement – there were concerns that local authorities did not have the necessary technical expertise
to enforce noise schemes, or might have a bias either supportive or antagonistic towards the schemes
(the latter could be a particular concern for those local authorities who are shareholders in their local
airport). Some argued that the CAA, rather than local authorities, should have responsibility for
enforcing noise amelioration schemes. Equally, some felt it unreasonable to expect airports to impose
sanctions on airline customers, or to be accountable for the airlines’ actions.

Sources: Control of noise from civil aircraft, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions,
August 2000, and Summary of Responses to Control of Noise from Civil Aircraft, Department of
Transport, Local Government and the Regions, 2002.

It is also possible that different local amelioration schemes could alter the relative competitive
positions of airports – although environmental groups argue that larger fees for using airports with
greater noise impacts ensures that airlines would pay towards the environmental costs of using
that airport. This issue is discussed further in section 7.4. Overall, noise mitigation schemes
need to be tailored to address the specific circumstances of each airport. However, some have
suggested that national guidelines may be needed when an airport introduces noise mitigation
measures. Some airlines and airports have proposed that only airports above a certain size
should be required to take action on noise. However, the size of an airport does not necessarily
reflect its noise impact; for example Belfast International airport currently handles around a third
more flights than Belfast City, but Belfast City’s noise impact is almost seven times as great.
Instead, requirements to introduce noise mitigation schemes would depend on the noise impact
of the airport – e.g. in relation to the numbers of people exposed (or expected to be exposed) to
more than a certain noise level such as the 57dB(A) Leq threshold for community annoyance.
This issue is discussed further in section 7.2.

Equally, airports have argued for a nationally agreed ‘toolkit’ of potential mitigation measures.
This could reduce the need for technical expertise, although some expertise would still be needed
to suit local circumstances. For example, a list of takeoff noise limits realistically achievable by
different aircraft types could ensure regulatory measures were feasible and reassure airlines that
‘unfair’ schemes could not be introduced. Questions remain, however, over who would compile,
update, disseminate, monitor and evaluate such guidance. There are many options for this,
ranging from the DfT itself (or its advisory committee, ANMAC), through the Civil Aviation
Authority, a range of professional bodies (such as the Chartered Institute of Environmental
Health), or through an independent body comprising representatives from a range of interests,
including lay representatives – this may be some variant or amalgamation of airport consultative
committees. The forthcoming white paper is expected to put forward suggestions on this topic.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Noise Page 28

Voluntary agreements or regulation

CDAs represent an initiative that has already played a role in tackling noise at the designated
airports. In principle, they are mandatory, although there is no punitive regulatory regime under
which they can be enforced. Airlines receive regular feedback on their performance in achieving
CDA, track keeping and noise infringements. This information is also made publicly available,
giving the opportunity for scrutiny to create further pressure for continued good performance.
Other airports around the country have expressed an interest in using the CDA code of practice to
improve their procedures. Airlines argue that raising awareness of noise impacts and sharing best
practice, backed up with voluntary agreements, is adequate to deal with noise problems, and that
a more formal regulatory system would be less effective.

CDA procedures allow airlines to reduce noise for little effort, and also offer economic and
environmental benefits from being more fuel efficient than approaches containing segments of
level flight. However, although the potential already exists for voluntary agreements on many
noise related procedures, few (other than the major airports) have established any. It is widely
acknowledged that voluntary agreements have a role to play, but also that supporting regulation
would provide an incentive to encourage airports, airlines and ATC to work together reduce noise.

Regulation has also provided a powerful incentive in driving aircraft technology (see chapter 7).
In making aircraft purchasing decisions, some airlines will want their long haul fleets to meet
Heathrow’s most stringent night noise restrictions to enable them to take advantage of the
lucrative and scarce night slots at the airport. Here, national regulations (such as night noise
quotas) are driving innovation more strongly than the ICAO ‘chapters’, notwithstanding BATA’s
suggestion that these provide little incentive to go beyond current regulatory limits. Thus, many
point out that, without stricter national regulation there is little incentive for aircraft
manufacturers to strive to exceed the ICAO Chapter 4 standard, mandatory for new aircraft from
2006, and which most new aircraft designs easily meet now.

The role of economic incentives

The ICAO does not prevent states from introducing noise-related landing charges. Some UK
airports, such as Heathrow, already vary landing charges according to noise certification of the
aircraft. Time-variable charges could also levied to reflect the additional disturbance caused by
landing or take-off in the evening or at night. However, it remains unclear whether such charges
would provide sufficient incentive for airlines to use quieter aircraft than at present.

An alternative or complement, suggested by the Government, is to allow airports to set charges

according to compliance with noise mitigation procedures, as a less ‘heavy handed’ approach
than regulation, but charges would have to be set sufficiently high so that airlines were deterred
from wilfully violating the procedures on profitable routes39.

Moreover, while variable landing charges related to procedures, such as track keeping, sticking to
CDA, and staying within noise quotas create incentives for airlines to reduce noise, they do not
create direct incentives for manufacturers to act proactively to improve the noise performance in
new aircraft. Responding to community concerns, airport operators can encourage airlines to
exert pressure on manufacturers, through the supply chain, to bring about more substantial noise
reductions than have been suggested by ACARE are achievable.

39
This might penalise less profitable routes. An element of a noise charge based a route’s profitability may be possible.
However, charging on the basis of a route’s profitability may be discriminatory.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Noise Page 29

3.5 Overview
Aircraft noise already has the potential to affect the quality of life of at least half a million people
living close to UK airports – with four fifths of these living close to the major airports in the
southeast of England. This chapter has outlined a number of potential policy mechanisms that
could provide incremental improvements in the noise climate around airports. However, the
forecast increase in air traffic movements, if realised, is likely to outstrip any progress in making
individual movements quieter. Thus, the unconstrained rate of aviation growth forecast is likely
to worsen (see figure on page 22) the noise climate around many of the UK’s airports over the
next few decades. Larger numbers of people would be exposed to the risks of sleep disturbance,
annoyance and possible health effects of aircraft noise.

The Government itself recognises noise as “one of the most objectionable impacts of airport
development” and that “for many airports, taking effective measures to control and mitigate
aircraft noise is fundamental to their sustainable development.”40 This suggests therefore, that
unless substantial improvements to the noise climate around certain airports are made, aircraft
noise could well become a significant factor in constraining future airport expansion.

40
Department for Transport, Guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority on environmental objectives relevant to the
exercise of its air navigation functions, January 2002, para 28.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Noise Page 30
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Local air pollution Page 31

4 Local air pollution

Aircraft, airport vehicles and road traffic to access airports emit air pollutants, such as nitrogen
oxides (NOx), fine particles (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). This chapter examines the sources of air pollutants in and around airports, their
contribution to local pollution levels, possible adverse effects, and options to reduce emissions.

4.1 Air pollutants and their sources

Aircraft engine emissions
CO and VOCs are a product of incomplete combustion of fuel, while NOx is produced primarily
from the oxidation of air at high temperatures within internal combustion and gas turbine
engines. In addition, engines also emit fine solid particles referred to as PM10 (these are particles
with a diameter less than 10 microns – 10 millionths of a metre). The emission of these
pollutants depends on how an aircraft operates – i.e. idling, taxiing, taking off, or landing. NOx
emissions dominate during take off, climb and landing, while during taxiing and descent the
engine is not as efficient and produces more CO and hydrocarbons. While some particles are
formed during the combustion of aviation fuel, the main sources of PM10 are wear on the brakes
and tyres during landing and take-off.

Air pollutants from aviation are (by convention) measured over a reference landing and take-off
cycle (LTO), which covers aircraft emissions up to an altitude of 3,000 feet (915m). On average,
the LTO cycle describes 20-30% of the NOx emissions of an entire flight and even up to 90% of
the VOC emissions.41 However, once an aircraft has climbed to an altitude of around 1,000 feet,
its contribution to air pollution on the ground is negligible.

Airport operation
Most major airports have their own electricity generators to heat, light and power terminals,
runways and operational buildings. However, the extent to which these are used, as opposed to
using electricity from the local grid, depends on the relative costs of electricity. For example,
Manchester airport has a number of combined heat and power plants, but due to the relative cost
of electricity from these units compared with purchasing electricity from the local grid, they are
not used very often. Combustion of gas or diesel leads to air pollutant emissions. In addition,
most aircraft have an auxiliary power unit (APU), which is an onboard turbine that provides
power for the aircraft and cabin air conditioning. APUs are powered by aviation fuel, and thus
give rise to emissions of air pollutants. However, it is now general practice for aircraft to use
fixed electricity supplies from the terminal building while alongside rather than APUs.

Airside vehicles such as baggage trolleys, catering trucks, tankers, tugs and coaches to transport
passengers and freight to the aircraft can contribute to airport emissions. Such vehicles are
characterised by travelling short distances at low speed and are used for long time periods. They
emit 5 to 10% of the total airport NOx emissions. Other sources of air pollution at an airport
include fire training exercises, aircraft maintenance, engine testing and de-icing. The storage and
delivery of fuel can give rise to VOC emissions from storage tanks, fuel lines and refuelling
facilities through evaporation and natural loss.

41
Zurich Airport Authority, Aircraft Engine Emission Charges, Jan 2000. However, evidence from studies at Heathrow
suggest that the LTO cycle may overestimate the contribution from aircraft in flight, and hence may be a source of error
in modelling local air quality around airports.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Local air pollution Page 32

Transport links
A major contribution to air pollutant emissions comes from road traffic to and from the airport.
This includes cars, taxis, coaches, heavy and light goods vehicles, and light and heavy rail.
Together, these sources contribute about 10% of airport NOx emissions. In many cases, road
transport emissions exceed aircraft emissions in the vicinity of airports42.

The majority of passengers, staff and freight currently arrive at airports by road. Motor vehicles
account for the largest single contribution to airport pollution levels. This kind of air pollution
depends on the location of the airport as well as its accessibility by public transport. For example,
in 2001 50% of passengers to Gatwick airport arrived by private car and only 30% by rail or
bus43. At Heathrow, 36% of passengers arrived by private car in 2001. A survey in 1996 at
European airports showed that only 8% (Hamburg) to 35% (Munich) of all trips to the airport in
one year were on public transport. The figure for Zurich airport was 39%. Emissions of NOx are
linked with the occurrence of another pollutant, ground-level ozone, which is formed in the
atmosphere by a series of chemical reactions between NOx, VOCs and oxygen in the presence of
sunlight. Ozone may remain in the atmosphere for several days before breaking down, and can be
transported downwind, thereby causing high concentrations to build up in rural areas rather than
in urban areas, where the ozone is rapidly broken down by other pollutants.

4.2 Health effects

Health effects from air pollution form the basis for European and national targets for controlling
the emission of air pollutants (see POSTnote 188). Effects of exposure to air pollutants include
headaches, asthma and respiratory complications. During certain weather conditions, levels of
air pollutants can rise significantly leading to the premature death of already weak and vulnerable
people. In 1995/1996 up to 24,000 deaths were “brought forward” in the UK due to the short
term, or acute effects of air pollution from all sources combined44. It is not possible at present to
disaggregate these figures by specific sources. Research indicates that long-term exposure is
thought to have an even greater impact, although this has been difficult to quantify. Poor air
quality, however, not only affects people, but also other animals, plants buildings and materials
(e.g. blackening and corroding historic buildings). These effects can occur at lower levels than
specified for human health protection. Thus controlling air pollution to protect human health may
not necessarily reduce the vulnerability of these other potential targets.

4.3 Reducing air pollution from aviation

International action
The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) deals with environmental effects through the
Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP). Resolution A33-7 addresses noise and
emissions and the problem of limiting exhaust pollution from aircraft. ICAO has set engine
certification standards in the Convention on International Aviation (Annex 16 – Environmental
Protection, Volume II – Aircraft Engine Emissions). These limit the emissions of unburned
hydrocarbons, CO, NOx and smoke during the LTO cycle up to an altitude of 3,000 feet. ICAO
standards are constantly reviewed and in 1999 it mandated further NOx reduction of 16% on all
aircraft jet engines certified after December 2003. However, aircraft typically operate for up to
25 years, so it will take some time to replace the existing aircraft fleet.

42
European Federation for Transport and Environment, Aviation and Its Impact on the Environment, 1999.
43
BAA Gatwick Airport, Transport Report, 2002.
44
Committee on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollution, Quantification of the effects of air pollution on health in the UK,
1998. ‘Deaths brought forward’ means that vulnerable people might have lived longer if air pollution was not a factor.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Local air pollution Page 33

European action
The 1996 Framework Directive on Ambient Air Quality (96/62/EC) and subsequent associated
‘daughter’ directives set mandatory limit values for a range of pollutants including NO2, and PM10.
EU limits for overall NO2 are binding from 2010, PM10 from 2005 with mandatory further
tightening from 2010. If the EU limits are exceeded, the government is liable to legal action by
the European Commission and could be fined.

The UK also belongs to the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), the regional grouping of
ICAO member states. ECAC has an environmental committee on the Abatement of Nuisances
Caused by Air Transport (ANCAT). While ANCAT has proved useful in getting a European
consensus on emission reporting, certification and charging matters, its effectiveness at
international level is limited as it must negotiate alongside similar groupings covering four other
regions of the world.

UK action
ICAO standards are implemented in member states through national legislation. In the UK, this
is through the Air Navigation (Environmental Standards) Order 2002. In addition, there are Air
Quality Strategies (AQSs) for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland45 that set health-
based air quality targets for eight key pollutants to be achieved between 2003 and 2008. The
AQSs incorporate the legally binding EU limits and also include stricter national targets for some
pollutants. Pollutants controlled under the AQSs are benzene, 1,3-butadiene, CO, lead, NO2,
ozone, PM10, and SO2.

Local authorities are required to monitor and assess local air quality. In areas where targets are
likely to be exceeded, local authorities have to declare an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA)
and work towards achieving the targets through the local air quality management process and in
collaboration with major operators where necessary. In most cases AQMA areas have to be
declared due to high NO2 levels. Such an AQMA has already been declared covering a large part
of the area around Heathrow – although this was generally as the result of emissions from traffic
along major roads in the area. Similarly, NO2 levels at Gatwick airport are very close to breaching
the AQS target. Industrial emissions are regulated by the Environment Agency in England and
Wales, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and local authorities under the Integrated
Pollution Control (IPC) regime. While airports as a whole are specifically excluded from IPC,
combustion plants at the airport are regulated.

Aircraft emissions can add to already high levels of pollution from road traffic and so cause air
quality limits to be exceeded. It is widely acknowledged that NO2 and PM10 are the most
challenging pollutants for airports to control, and around the busiest airports achieving
compliance with the limit values for 2010 will be very challenging, regardless of any future
expansion. Indeed, in 2001/02 air quality close to access roads at Heathrow and Gatwick failed
the annual average daily NO2 objective. Monitoring has also shown several breaches of the PM10
daily average objective. This is not unique to airports, and common to many urban areas.

Although elevated air pollutant concentrations may occur in and around an airport, people are not
necessarily affected by these ambient concentrations. Thus, the effect of air pollution on people
is assessed with reference to the actual exposures that people are likely to experience. Modelling
studies can use monitoring and emission data to calculate levels of exposure in areas around an
airport. The box on the next page outlines typical exposure at Heathrow. Meeting air quality
objectives is likely to be difficult at Gatwick, but straightforward at all other airports in the UK.

45
first published as a single National Air Quality Strategy in 1997
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Local air pollution Page 34

Air pollution at Heathrow

More than half of the current NO2 concentrations in the vicinity of the airport are estimated to be from
aircraft. In the near future, the Terminal 5 approval depends on an action plan provided by BAA to show
how it intends to minimise the emissions of pollutants from, and attributable to, Heathrow.

Further ahead, modelling indicates that up to 35,000 people could be exposed to air pollution that
exceeds the EU limit on NO2 in 2015 if a third runway were built. If no new runway were built, 14,000
people would be exposed in 2015.

Thus, meeting the EU limit for NO2 at Heathrow will be challenging even without the addition of a third
runway. An additional runway cannot be considered unless the Government can be confident that levels of
all relevant pollutants could be contained within EU limits. Thus, achieving European air quality targets
could present a constraint to airport growth at Heathrow.

Reducing emissions from aircraft engines

Aircraft manufacturers and airlines report that the threat of regulation is the major driver behind
the development of new technologies to improve environmental performance, including advances
in aerodynamics, efficient engine design, especially combustor design. BAA supports the
development of incentives to encourage low emissions technology for aircraft and lobbies for
improvements of aircraft emissions performance through more stringent manufacturing standards.

Aircraft emissions depend to a large extent on fuel efficiency and combustion technology. One
problem is that NOx emissions increase with improving combustion efficiency. However, this
problem was partly overcome by the introduction of staged engines using different combustion
technologies. These combustors already fulfil the new ICAO standards for NOx, which have to be
applied to new aircraft by 2004 and could reduce NOx emissions per kg of fuel burnt by up to
30% compared with current designs46. British Airways operates half of its fleet of 747 aircraft
with these new combustors. ACARE has set a target of an 80% reduction in NOx emissions in
new aircraft by 2020, which will require improvements in combustor technology.

At present, and for the foreseeable future, kerosene still appears to be the ideal aircraft fuel in
terms of density, weight and safety and can easily be stored in the wings of an aircraft.
Consideration is also being given to using hydrogen as a fuel for aircraft47. However, the benefits
of kerosene may not be achievable with hydrogen and would require novel aircraft designs.
Safety, economic and technical considerations make it uncertain whether such aircraft could
begin operation within the next 20 to 25 years. In addition, emissions from a hydrogen powered
aircraft would contain water vapour. As chapter 6 discusses, emission of water vapour at high
altitude exacerbates the greenhouse effect, and so would have an impact on the global climate.

Market-based measures.
ICAO has a long-standing policy that there should be no tax on aviation fuel used for international
services. However, the opportunity remains for DfT to focus more on reducing emissions through
emissions charges, based on calculated aircraft emissions. To help to introduce the charge and
minimise any competitive distortions from unilateral charges, a revenue-neutral scheme might be
most appropriate, e.g. with revenues being recycled to airline companies to enhance further
environmental improvements. For instance, charges for traffic generated around airports could be
used specifically to expand and improve public transport. The box on the next page outlines the
emissions-based charging scheme operated at Zurich airport.

46
Air Transport Action Group, Industry as a partner for sustainable development, 2002.
47
Prospects for a hydrogen economy, POSTnote 186, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2002.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Local air pollution Page 35

Aircraft engine emission charge at Zurich airport

In September 1997, Zurich airport introduced an emission charge based on engine emission and
performance parameters to reduce emissions of NOx and hydrocarbons. The aim of the charge is to promote
and accelerate the introduction and use of the best available aircraft engine technology. Aircraft engines
have been classified according to engine emission factors. Depending on the class, a charge of between 0
and 40% of the landing fee has to be paid. All aircraft were given a general reduction of the weight-based
landing fee of 5%. Thus the airport is not increasing its revenue by the emission charge. The revenue will be
used to cover costs for emission reduction measures, such as an air pollution monitoring station, on site
power stations and additional taxiways to reduce taxi-times. Although results of this scheme are unclear at
present, Zurich airport expects improvements in the long-term. It is noteworthy that IATA unsuccessfully
challenged the NOx charge at Zurich, and now a similar scheme operates at Geneva and Bern. Airports in
Sweden also operate emission charges.

Aircraft operations
Operational improvements at an airport, such as a timely implementation of new systems for
communications, navigation, surveillance and air traffic management (CNS/ATM), have the
potential to reduce the amount of fuel burned by between 6% and 12% by 205048. CNS/ATM is
a global satellite navigation system intended to optimise flight routings and eliminate congestion
problems, which is planned to reduce delays and flight times. It could also reduce the use of
kerosene across Europe by up to 1.5 million tonnes each year. Improvement of approach
trajectories could optimise the flight paths with regard to fuel consumption. Furthermore, the
increasing use of continuous descent approach (CDA) is reducing emissions of arriving aircraft by
reduction in staged descent (see chapter 3). Another option to reduce emissions during aircraft
operation is to reduce thrust during take-off, and indeed, BATA reports that 90% of departures
already use this technique. However, long runways are required and weather conditions (such as
strong tailwinds) might not allow such procedures.

Airport operations and surface access

There is potential to reduce airport emissions by using airside vehicles powered by cleaner fuels,
or by different means (e.g. low emission buses will be introduced at Heathrow by 2005 - see box
on next page). Such an approach is strongly supported by BAA, which also uses emission
abatement technology for vehicles operating within airport boundaries. Although not currently
easy to determine, a substantial contribution to local air pollution around airports currently comes
from road traffic accessing the airport. Improvements in vehicle emissions have already led to
improved urban air quality (see POSTnote 188) and this is expected to continue for the next few
decades.

Information needs
Despite considerable work in this area, further information is still necessary to give a more
reliable picture of the extent and significance of air pollution from aircraft:
• improved characterisation of aircraft engine emissions during the landing and take-off (LTO)
cycle to improve emission inventories
• more information on the sources, emissions and effects of particles from aircraft and vehicles
• guidance for local authorities on improved monitoring and modelling to enable assessment of
emissions related to aviation and airports49.

The DfT is supporting research into a technique for attributing sources of hydrocarbons in
deposits around an airport. While this research is still at an early stage, if successful it will
enable the sources of hydrocarbons present in the atmosphere or on the ground to be identified,

48
ICAO: Aircraft engine emissions: Definition of the problem. See also Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
Special Report: Aviation and the global atmosphere, 1999.
49
BAA has called for independent, validated modelling and monitoring data, to ensure all emissions are accounted for.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Local air pollution Page 36

Surface access at Heathrow

The bus and coach station at Heathrow is the busiest in the UK with 16,000 vehicle movements a day. A
surface access strategy was launched in 2002, which includes the introduction of alternatively fuelled
airport vehicles and electric cars and bikes for staff journeys. The aim of the strategy is for 40% of
passengers to use public transport to access the airport by 2007 - the current figure is 34%. One measure
being considered to promote public transport is to reduce the availability of parking places at the airport.
The Mayor of London is considering introducing a congestion charge at Heathrow airport.

so resources could be directed more efficiently towards tackling the dominant sources.
Ultimately, this could have implications for international performance standards for aircraft,
airline fleet purchase decisions, and airports as well as for local authorities’ action plans.

4.4 Overview
With continuing improvements in the emissions from road vehicles, set alongside the forecast
growth in air travel, emissions from aircraft are likely to become more significant as a source of
air pollution around airports. If the current trend in improved engine technologies continues,
developments would cause an overall reduction in emissions from each source of about 20% by
2015, compared with 1992 levels. However, even if the full potential of technical and
operational measures to reduce emissions were achieved, overall levels of emissions from an
increased number of all sources would still be expected to increase. The numbers of people
potentially affected by these emissions would depend on their proximity to the pollution sources
and the local conditions that affect how pollutants are dispersed.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Other local environmental impacts Page 37

5 Other local environmental impacts

Previous chapters have considered several environmental impacts arising from aviation. This
chapter outlines a number of other potential impacts and how they could be mitigated, in
particular:
• land take and the implications for wildlife habitats, landscape and heritage
• water pollution, particularly from de-icing aircraft, runways and aprons
• waste management, particularly waste generated inside terminal buildings.

Many of these impacts are generic to most large infrastructure developments. However, it is
beyond the scope of this report to compare the impacts of aviation development with those from
other modes of transport, or any other large infrastructure project. POSTnote 173 outlines the
key aspects of the appraisal of major infrastructure projects.

5.1 Land take

The expansion of existing airports or the creation of new ones requires large amounts of land and
can have considerable effects on the local environment. Land is needed for runways, aprons,
airport buildings, car parks, etc. Also, airports generate related industries (such as cargo
handling facilities, hotels, conference centres, etc.), and land is need for access to the airport.
A new or expanding airport may also generate the need for new housing, schools, hospitals and
commercial development. The degree of land take will relate to the existing infrastructure and
the extent of development required. To a large extent this depends on the characteristics of the
aircraft likely to use an airport, the frequency and number of aircraft movements, and the
numbers of passengers passing through the airport each year. As well as land needed for the
airport itself, residential and other properties may also be taken for safety reasons.

Effects on wildlife habitats

Land-take associated with development can result in the loss or break up of wildlife habitats.
The significance of such effects depends on the area of land lost, the ecological value of the
habitat and the degree to which species depend on it, the ability of species to migrate and survive
in other areas and the extent of fragmentation. Fragmentation is an important impact related to
land-take because it interferes with the movement of animals, decreases habitat size and reduces
interaction between wildlife communities, possibly leading to a decrease in the diversity and
abundance of species.

Habitats and species can also be disturbed or damaged by traffic noise and light, vehicle
emissions, contaminated runoff and oil discharges. Direct mortality can result from vegetation
destruction and trampling, and from road traffic. The release of pollutants into the environment
can also affect natural habitats because some pollutants can be toxic – either killing or weakening
certain species, while other, more resilient species can flourish. Airport developments can also
affect flooding, and the balance of moisture in the soil (e.g. waterlogging or soil drought).
Removing vegetation can also affect the stability of soils on a slope, and this can exacerbate
flooding, increase erosion and hence the amount of sediment entering watercourses, thus
potentially damaging habitats.

Mitigating effects on wildlife

One of the oldest and most common measures for the protection of wildlife and habitats is to
designate areas for protection. These exist at statutory and non-statutory designated sites, where
species and habitats are considered to be valuable at a range of levels: from international,
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Other local environmental impacts Page 38

through European, to national and sub-national down to local interest. Nevertheless, many of the
options for airport expansion outlined in the Government’s consultation documents are likely to
encroach on green belt areas, designated conservation areas or local nature reserves. However,
there are many ways in which the ecological effects of land-take can be mitigated:
• changing a project’s location, alignment, design or construction and operating procedures
• designing facilities to incorporate measures to minimise pollution, soil erosion and run-off
• creating buffer zones and modifying site boundaries to take account of sensitive sites
• providing features, such as road underpasses for badgers, that reduce fragmentation of
habitats
• ensuring minimum ecological damage during construction
• designating protection zones and protecting adjacent habitats by erecting boundary fences.

Other mitigation measures are remedial or compensatory measures, which can be important
when the destruction or damage to habitats is unavoidable. Such measures include:
• translocation – rescuing species from the development site and moving them to another
environmentally suitable site, i.e. a site that has a similar soil type, hydrology and climate
• habitat restoration – repairing a damaged ecosystem, including management of the existing
system and using rescued species to repair or enhance a community that is not affected by a
development
• habitat creation – usually proposed as a compensation measure for the loss of a valuable
habitat.

Effects on landscape and heritage

When land is taken for development there may be a significant impact on the landscape. There
are many elements that make up a landscape including physical elements such as geology,
landform, climate, drainage, soil, vegetation and human elements such as archaeological
remains, land use, buildings and settlements, as well as other historical and cultural associations.
These combine in many ways to create aesthetic landscape values.

Vegetation damage or removal, or changes to the landform of an area can affect the character of
a landscape. Inherent in such character are issues such as tranquillity, cultural heritage, sense of
place and land cover. However, other important considerations include the recipients of the
benefits of landscape character (e.g. visitors, residents, people passing through, etc), the scale of
the landscape and the potential effects of development, and wider considerations of landscape
importance, for instance, through designations as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The use of land can result in damage to or the loss of historic buildings, archaeological sites and
monuments. In addition to effects on known assets, previously undiscovered artefacts may be
affected. An airport can change its surroundings into an urbanised setting, replacing previously
rural characteristics with a more urban, built-up commercial and industrial landscape, which in
turn, provides a catalyst for further urban development. Furthermore, lighting can create a glow
in the night sky above a large development, which can be viewed from up to 10km away.
However, the extent of any effects are dependent on the physical planning of the airport, the
characteristics of the infrastructure and the nature of the pre-existing landscape.

Mitigating effects on landscape and heritage

New developments in sensitive landscapes can be designed in a way that reflects traditional
patterns and styles, and to fit in (as far as possible) with the existing landforms and landscape
features. Many airports are planned, designed and managed with the aim of creating an
attractive environment, with vegetation planting to minimise the perception of noise, light
disturbance and odour, and to soften the more urban appearance. Such screening can
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Other local environmental impacts Page 39

Environmental management at Manchester Airport

Among its environmental policies, Manchester airport aims to provide best practice habitat and landscape
management and create new and improved existing habitats and landscape. The airport occupies a total
of 860 hectares – of which 520 hectares comprise the runways, taxiways, buildings, airfield grassland and
landscaping, and 340 hectares is of agricultural and/or ecological value. As part of the approval for the
second runway, the airport developed a 15-year landscape and habitat management plan, which details
how land will be managed to improve ecological habitat such as hedgerows and ponds, while maintaining
viable agriculture.

Landscape on the airport site is also carefully managed, with no use of peat and minimal use of pesticides.
Green waste is minimised through the use of mulch mowers and woodchippers allowing grass cuttings and
pruning waste to be reused within the site.

To mitigate the impacts of the second runway, a detailed £17 million environmental management plan
was developed. This includes planting six new trees for every one removed, providing or improving two
ponds for every one lost, planting or restoring over 36km of hedgerow, and creating new areas of wild
flower grassland and woodland. Additional special measures have been undertaken to deal with the
protected species identified within the site. Progress is monitored and reviewed by a Nature Conservation
and Landscape Steering Group, which meets regularly and brings together the Airport Company, local
authorities, specialist bodies (e.g. English Nature) and representatives of the local community. Work
included:
• relocation of over 30,000 amphibians, including 4,000 newts to the 40 new and improved local ponds
• construction of 3 new bat barns which are now being used
• captive breeding at Chester Zoo of a rare mud snail found on the site, to be returned to the area once
the construction works are complete
• successful relocation of a family of badgers to a new artificial sett
• translocation of 15 areas of grassland and woodland, and creation and improvement of 27 hedges
• recording, dismantling and planned reconstruction of two listed buildings
• undertaking an archaeological survey which uncovered a walkway in the Bollin Valley (dated to 1730)
and evidence of bronze age settlements
• improvements to the River Bollin downstream of the second runway site.

incorporate existing woodland and other vegetation, particularly around car parks, terminal
buildings and access routes. Additional screening through sensitively designed earth mounds,
planting or noise barriers may also be required. Archaeological remains and buildings of
historical importance can be avoided, or in extreme circumstances, artefacts can be excavated, or
buildings can be relocated or reconstructed following construction. The box above outlines some
of the key features of the measures taken to manage local environmental impacts at Manchester
airport, particularly those related to the impacts of building the second runway.

5.2 Water pollution

Effects on water
Land-take associated with development can have a major impact on water resources and water
quality which can directly and indirectly affect wildlife habitats. In particular, stormwater runoff
and de-icing (see the box on the next page) are considered to have a potentially significant
effects. Adverse effects can result from changes in the flows of water, and the amount of water
passing through the soil into groundwater. As mentioned above, pollutants and nutrients can
enter the water, and water temperatures may be increased50 (this will reduce the amount of
oxygen in the water, and thus present a risk to many aquatic species). These changes can affect
wildlife and habitats.

The natural drainage patterns of an area can be affected by developments because they generally
increase the area of impermeable ground, resulting in greater volume and rate of surface water
runoff. Lining watercourses with concrete, channel realignment and diversion of streams through
culverts also increase flows, with an increased risk of flooding which can affect habitats.

50
Due to the heating effect of sunlight on large expanses of concrete across which surface water can flow.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Other local environmental impacts Page 40

De-icing at airports
Snow, ice or slush on aircraft and runways can result in hazardous conditions that can lead to accidents,
delays, diversions and cancellations. In general, airlines are responsible for the de-icing and anti-icing of
aircraft and airports are responsible for the de-icing of runways and airfields. Globally, chemicals such as
ethylene or propylene based glycol mixtures, containing between 10 and 20 percent additives, are the most
common methods of de-icing and anti-icing, with approximately 300-400 gallons of de-icing/anti-icing fluid
used per aircraft. BAA airports do not use ethylene glycol for de-icing. Additives, such as dioxane,
formamides, and acetaldehyde, among other chemicals, can be used as wetting agents, corrosion inhibitors,
surfactants, dyes and thickeners. Estimates have suggested that at least 80% of the de-icer/anti-icer chemicals
applied to aircrafts do not remain on the aircraft but spill onto the ground or spray into the atmosphere.

De-icing and anti-icing chemicals can contaminate groundwater and surface water supplies if allowed to flow
from airport facilities to storm drains or waterways. Ethylene and propylene glycol based chemicals are very
soluble and can rapidly breakdown in a process that consumes oxygen and threatens aquatic life.

Urea-based de-icing agents are also frequently used and, when released into the environment, increase the
nitrate content of soil. As with glycol based de-icing/anti-icing chemicals, urea based chemicals reduce the
oxygen levels of water resources and can be directly or indirectly toxic to aquatic organisms. Although nitrate
pollution from airports is not comparable with the nitrate pollution caused by agriculture, it can lead to
significant local pollution. Nitrates are harmful to humans when they enter the human body because they are
converted into the carcinogenic nitrosamine.

To comply with pollution control regimes in the UK, airport operators must minimise and control potential
water pollution from de-icing. Thus, they use tanks or ponds to hold run-off so that it can be released during
high flow periods, when mixing of the runoff with high water volumes minimises effects on aquatic systems.
Many airport operators filter the runoff through equipment that removes the pollutants. Other methods include
de-icing pads, the use of vacuum sweeper trucks to capture de-icing or anti-icing chemicals and the use of a
common stormwater system, sanitary sewer system or another dedicated drainage system. Another option is
to use less harmful chemicals or techniques for de-icing/anti-icing operations, such as potassium acetate or
calcium magnesium acetate which have no significant impact on water quality. In the US one airline is testing
a system based on forced air and a smaller amount of de-icing fluid, which requires half the amount of de-icing
fluid than previously. Another airline is using a new method for de-icing aircraft that uses an infrared
technology inside a hangar. This technique is still in its early stages of development but at present appears too
slow to be of use at busy airports.

Reductions in the rate of groundwater recharge can also reduce residential and municipal water
supplies and affect local wetlands that rely on groundwater to maintain wet conditions during dry
periods. Lower stream flows can affect aquatic habitats and the ability of a watercourse to dilute
toxic spills.

Mitigating effects on water

In addition to the de-icing measures outlined earlier, other measures to mitigate the effects of
airport developments on water quality include:
• mandatory consents to discharge potentially polluted surface water
• engineered schemes to prevent discharges until certified as being of an acceptable quality
• sewers and pipelines of adequate sizing and state of repair
• biological pollution control measures such as reed beds and settling ponds
• surface water control mechanisms such as balancing and storage ponds
• restoration, and where possible enhancement of habitats
• recycling and reuse of some materials and specialist disposal of others
• operating emergency procedures for accidents and spills.

5.3 Waste management

Airports generate every day wastes such as food and packaging in amounts proportional to the
numbers of people passing through and working at the airport. Contaminated wastes are also
produced from engineering facilities such as aircraft and vehicle workshops and cargo areas, and
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Other local environmental impacts Page 41

Managing airport wastes

Waste is often temporarily stored in bins, skips or compactor units at or near where it is generated, and then
transported directly to an off-site disposal facility such as a transfer station, landfill or incinerator. The waste
management service for the collection and disposal of solid waste is often contracted out by the airport
operator to one contractor, but tenant companies in other areas of the airport may control their own waste
management operations. As a result, an airport’s waste management may be controlled by many contractors,
resulting in more commercial vehicle traffic at airports than necessary and complications in its the monitoring
and control. A waste audit of a large UK airport discovered that more than 30 waste management contractors
were operating on site.

Manchester airport operates a number of waste initiatives. There is a waste minimisation club for terminal
catering companies, an induction training pack for terminal catering and retail staff to encourage recycling, a
terminal cleaning project to encourage cleaners to collect newspapers left by passengers, recycling bins in the
terminal to encourage passengers to segregate newspapers and skips to collect wooden pallets from the cargo
centre. Manchester airport’s policy is to control waste through purchasing policy, reduction of waste, reuse of
materials, segregation and recycling. For airport waste initiatives to succeed, all companies that operate on the
airport site need to be actively involved, with the airport plc providing a co-ordination, management and
information role.

require specialist segregated facilities. Sources of waste at airports include the aircraft, terminal
and office cleaning, retail, aircraft and terminal catering, engineering work and waste from
construction activities. Historically, the main objectives for waste management at airports have
been to ensure that wastes were not obtrusive, did not cause a nuisance, did not present health
and safety hazards and that facilities for management occupied a minimum amount of land.
However, airports and airlines increasingly recognise and understand the problems generated by
waste and acknowledge that action is necessary to minimise and recycle all types of waste (see
the box above). However, airports often point out that most waste is produced by sources that
are outside of their direct control, so waste minimisation techniques are rarely implemented.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Other local environmental impacts Page 42
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Effects on the global atmosphere Page 43

6 Effects on the global atmosphere

Previous chapters have considered the effects of aviation on the local environment around an
airport. This chapter considers the environmental impacts at a wider scale, in particular the
effects on the global atmosphere of greenhouse gases emissions from aircraft engines. The
chapter sets out how aircraft exhausts may contribute to global climate change and how this
could change with forecast growth in air travel both globally and in the UK. Options to address
such effects are outlined.

6.1 Aviation and climate change

Overall, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that aviation may
contribute around 3.5% of the total contribution of human activities to global warming51. Aircraft
engines emit a mixture of gases, with carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and water
vapour among the most relevant when considering effects on the global atmosphere (see the box
on the next page). While CO2 is a major contributor to any climate change effects from aviation,
the effects of water vapour, which is also a greenhouse gas, remain more uncertain. Further, the
potential to create condensation trails (contrails), and possibly induce high altitude (cirrus) clouds
may also be significant.

Factors affecting aircraft emissions

The emissions from any particular flight depend on a number of factors, such as the length and
altitude of the flight, the payload the aircraft is carrying and the design of the aircraft. The Royal
Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) has pointed out that fuel used for each kilometre
travelled varies with the length of flight involved52. Taking off and landing use relatively more fuel
compared with the cruise phase of a flight, so short haul flights use more fuel per kilometre than
long haul flights. As the length of a flight increases, the fuel used during take-off and landing
phases become a smaller proportion of the total, and the amount of fuel per kilometre decreases.
However, fuel efficiency does not increase indefinitely with distance flown. Beyond 4,000km,
the weight of fuel which must be carried for very long flights starts to become a significant
factor53. Nevertheless, the RCEP found that half of the fuel used globally is generated by flights
of less than 1200 nautical miles (2,300km), and thus concluded “short haul air traffic has
disproportionate environmental impact”.

Moreover, the distance for which an aircraft is designed to fly also affects its fuel efficiency. An
aircraft designed for long haul flights will need to be strong enough and large enough to carry the
large amount of fuel necessary. This in turn will increase the weight of the empty aircraft. Using
an aircraft designed to fly a particular distance will therefore usually be more fuel efficient than
using an aircraft designed for a longer distance.

6.2 The scale of the effects

International
In 1992, global CO2 emissions from aircraft were around 140 million tonnes of carbon (140
MtC), constituting 2.4% of total carbon dioxide emissions from human activities. For
comparison, this figure equates closely with the UK’s total CO2 emissions.

51
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Aviation and the global atmosphere, 1999.
52
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Environmental effects of civil aircraft in flight, 2002.
53
a 15,000 km flight may require as much as 120 tonnes of kerosene, and a substantial fraction of this will be used in
the first third of the journey to carry the fuel necessary for the last two-thirds.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Effects on the global atmosphere Page 44

Climate change effects of subsonic aircraft54

While uncertain, current understanding points to a series of complex interactions between many components of
the exhaust gases from aircraft engines. For example, NOx reacts in the atmosphere to produce ozone and
destroy methane, while water vapour can freeze to produce the characteristic contrails (condensation trails)
seen behind high flying aircraft. Different exhaust gases also vary in their distribution - whether they are
rapidly mixed throughout the atmosphere to give global effects or remain localised over a particular region -
and in their longevity in the atmosphere. For example, although carbon dioxide usually remains in the
atmosphere for around 100 years, water vapour is typically removed by precipitation (rain, fog, snow) within a
few weeks. In addition, some effects vary with the geographical region where the exhaust gases are produced,
with the time of year, the altitude of the aircraft and even the weather during the flight.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) allows ultraviolet and visible radiation from the sun to reach and warm the earth's
surface but prevents heat from escaping, hence trapping radiation in the atmosphere and warming the earth.
The global warming effect of CO2 is well understood. The amount of CO2 produced in aircraft exhaust relates
directly to the amount of fuel used. After production it is rapidly mixed throughout the atmosphere and
remains there for around 100 years. Its effects are therefore global and cumulative.

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are produced by reaction of atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen in the high temperatures
and pressures of aircraft engines. At the altitude of most jet aircraft NOx reacts with atmospheric oxygen to
increase concentrations of ozone, which is a very effective greenhouse gas at this altitude. The IPCC estimated
that ozone makes a greater contribution to aviation’s greenhouse effect than CO2, and more recent research
has suggested that even this may have been an underestimate. Since the lifetime of ozone in the atmosphere
is a matter of days, its effects are concentrated around the most heavily used flight paths i.e. over the US,
North Atlantic and Western Europe. The IPCC report estimated that ozone concentrations in these areas at
aircraft cruise altitudes were 6% higher than they would have been without aircraft. Although other aircraft
exhaust products such as soot and water may destroy ozone, these effects have not been characterised. There
are therefore still considerable uncertainties as to the exact contribution that ozone makes to aviation-induced
global warming. NOx also destroys atmospheric methane, another greenhouse gas, but research published
since the IPCC report suggests that the IPCC may have overestimated the scale of this effect

Water vapour emitted at altitude is a greenhouse gas and makes a small contribution to the overall global
warming impact of aviation. More significant are:
• contrails –the white condensation trails seen behind aircraft at high altitudes. These are ice crystals formed
when exhaust water vapour freezes. Their formation is highly dependent on flight altitude and the weather
at the time of the flight. They can spread out sideways to cover several kilometres and become almost
indistinguishable from natural cirrus clouds (see below). The IPCC reported that satellite imagery showed
that in 1996 and 1997, contrails covered on average 0.5% of the area over central Europe. Contrails, like
other clouds, trap heat and therefore contribute to the greenhouse effect (albeit on a regional, rather than
global scale). Cooling from the reflection of sunlight from the top of the clouds is also a possibility. Overall,
however, the magnitude of the effects of contrails remains highly uncertain.
• cirrus cloud - there is growing evidence that persistent contrails can develop into or induce cirrus clouds i.e.
the thin, high, wispy clouds visible on clear days. Like contrails, cirrus cloud has a warming effect.
Although the magnitude of this effect is currently very uncertain, it could be one of aviation's most
significant effects on global warming and would again be a regional occurrence.

Aerosols are small particles of soot and sulphates produced in aircraft exhausts. Soot aerosols have a warming
effect while sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect. These may approximately cancel out each other’s effect.
However, aerosols influence cloud formation and could contribute to contrail formation and cirrus coverage.
Aerosols may also be involved in destruction of the powerful greenhouse gas ozone (see nitrogen oxides
section). These mechanisms are poorly understood at present.

Due to the effects of greenhouse gases emitted at high altitude, the IPCC estimated that in 1992,
aviation produced 3.5% of the contributions to climate change from human activities. However,
this figure discounted the effects of cirrus cloud induced by aviation, due to the uncertainty about
these at the time. Further research has since indicated that their effect is likely to have been less
than previously thought55. However, considerable uncertainties remain.

54
The IPCC report estimated that supersonic aircraft, which cruise in the stratosphere at an altitude of around 19km,
have a global warming effect around five times that of the equivalent subsonic aircraft. At present the only supersonic
aircraft in regular use, Concorde, forms an insignificant proportion of the total civil aviation fleet.
55
Schumann, U. and Strom, J. Aviation impact on atmospheric composition and climate. In: European research in the
stratosphere 1996-2000. Directorate General for Research, European Commission EUR 19867, 2001.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Effects on the global atmosphere Page 45

The IPCC report considered the climate change impacts of various possible scenarios for future
growth in air traffic worldwide. These ranged from a low growth scenario of 2.2% per year
through a ‘reference scenario’ of average annual traffic growth of 3.1% to a high growth scenario
of 4.7% per year56. All scenarios assume increases in fuel efficiency and improvements in
technology leading to reduced NOx emissions. In the reference scenario CO2 emissions would
approximately triple by 2050 (compared with 1990), and climate change impact from CO2 would
increase around fourfold. Recent work has suggested that current worldwide growth in air traffic
is more in line with the IPCC’s high growth scenario. According to this scenario, CO2 emissions
would increase tenfold and total climate change impact eleven-fold between 1990 and 2050.
Aviation would also represent an increasing proportion of the total human contribution to climate
change - growing from 3.5% in 1992 to around 5% in 2050.

National
Under the 1997 Kyoto protocol57, the UK is committed to a 12.5% reduction in emissions of
greenhouse gases between 1990 and 2010. This includes emissions from flights within the UK
and from airports, but excludes international aviation58. Current emissions projections indicate
that the UK will meet its Kyoto target (possibly achieving a 15% reduction overall). In addition to
the Kyoto target, the Government has also set a domestic target to reduce CO2 emissions by 20%
by 201059. This corresponds to an annual reduction in emissions of 20 millions of tonnes of
carbon (MtC). In 2003, the Government stated a long term ambition to reduce national
emissions of CO2 by 60% by 2050.

Against this backdrop, the Government’s current consultation forecasts increases in CO2
emissions from domestic aviation and surface access of around 1 MtC by 201060. Emissions
from all other sectors (except road transport) are expected to decline. However, looking beyond
the confines of the definition of UK emissions to include emissions from international flights to or
from the UK, produces a very different picture. Emissions from international flights into or from
the UK are projected to increase by 30 to 40 MtC between 2000 and 2030, depending on the
rate of growth in aviation. This indicates that the reductions achieved by the Government’s
domestic CO2 emissions reduction programme are likely to be negated by emissions from the
growth in international air travel to and from the UK.

6.3 Reducing effects on the global climate

The quantities of CO2 and water vapour emitted from aircraft engines are proportional to the
amount of fuel used. Thus, a key to reducing emissions is to increase the fuel efficiency of
aircraft. Even without the environmental issues described above and in previous chapters, as fuel
costs represent around 10% of the running costs of an airline, economic drivers provide some
incentive to seek improvements in efficiency. Potential for fuel efficiency gains is concentrated in
two areas: technological options (such as improvements in engine efficiency, using alternative
fuels and power sources and improvements in aircraft aerodynamics); and operational procedures
(such as changes to air traffic control practices and flight arrangements).

Technological options
Engines and fuel
Between the 1960s and 1980s, the efficiency of aircraft engines more than doubled. Since that
time, however, the rate of improvement has slowed, reaching around 0.5% per year in the 1990s

56
The RCEP considered IPCC’s reference scenario to be conservative.
57
to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
58
Although the Kyoto Protocol set no targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from international aviation, it
did require action to be taken by contracting parties, working through ICAO, to reduce emissions from aircraft.
59
Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Climate Change: The UK programme, February 2001.
60
CO2 emissions from domestic aviation 2000 and 2030 are based on estimates by the DfT (pers comm.).
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Effects on the global atmosphere Page 46

as existing aircraft engine technologies have begun reaching the limits of their capability. This
led the European aviation industry body ACARE to state that conventional aircraft designs could
not deliver further significant improvements in fuel efficiency by 2020 and so “unconventional
solutions will have to be evaluated”.

Hydrogen is increasingly being proposed as a fuel for transport. It could power fuel cells, increase
efficiency (reducing CO2 emissions in flight) and reduce local air pollution61. Current thinking on
hydrogen-powered aircraft envisages the aircraft still using a combustion engine, rather than fuel
cells. Producing hydrogen itself uses energy. If this is derived from fossil fuel sources, CO2
emissions will still occur. In addition, burning hydrogen produces large quantities of water,
which (as discussed above) is a greenhouse gas and contributes to cloud formation. Further, as
hydrogen burns at a higher temperature than kerosene, using hydrogen in a jet engine is likely to
give rise to higher levels of NOx, which, at high altitude also has a potent effect on climate
change. It is by no means clear, therefore, whether a hydrogen-fuelled aircraft would have
significant environmental benefits in relation to climate change over one fuelled by kerosene.
Moreover, hydrogen has a very low density, so a hydrogen-fuelled aircraft would need to carry a
much greater volume of fuel than a kerosene-fuelled aircraft. This would require a major redesign
of the aircraft shape, which would carry significant extra costs.

Airframes
While incremental improvements on existing designs offer some scope for improvement of
aerodynamic efficiency, more radical designs would be required for significant fuel efficiency
gains. Both ACARE and the Greener by Design group62 have highlighted an aircraft design, based
on the ‘blended wing body’, essentially a triangular aircraft in which body and wings are merged.
This design offers the potential for lower drag and hence greater efficiency than conventional
designs. The RCEP also highlighted this design as one worth pursuing, although with the caveat
that (even if proved environmentally preferable) it would be many decades before such an aircraft
could make a significant contribution to the civil aviation fleet. In addition, current ideas for
blended wing body aircraft suggest that the aircraft will be considerably larger than current
aircraft, hence their operation at existing airports would be limited. If these aircraft were to make
substantial inroads into the aircraft fleet, radical redesign of airport infrastructure would also be
necessary.

Limits to technological solutions

Although technological research to produce step changes in engine and airframe performance is
ongoing, translating this from theoretical or laboratory models into fully safety-tested aircraft
designs ready for commercial sales is a major challenge. Given that it takes around 20 years to
design a new aircraft for commercial use, replacing even a modest proportion of the current fleet
with novel, significantly more efficient aircraft is unlikely within the next two decades.

Operational procedures
Air traffic management (ATM)
Aircraft rarely fly directly to their destinations; instead they follow pre-planned routes based on a
fixed route network. Flight paths are routed to avoid zones used by military aircraft and
historically have relied on passing over fixed navigation beacons on the ground. In Europe each
country is responsible for ATM in its own airspace. This leads to some inefficiencies in the use of
airspace which means that aircraft use more fuel than optimum. There is widespread agreement
that ATM efficiency improvements could lead to savings of around 6% in fuel efficiency over the

61
Prospects for a Hydrogen Economy, POSTnote 186, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, October 2002
62
Greener by Design is a group comprising, among others, airline, airport and aerospace manufacturing organisations,
and the Royal Aeronautical Society. It worked within the Department of Trade and Industry Foresight programme.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Effects on the global atmosphere Page 47

next 20 years. Achieving these gains depends not only on new technology such as satellite
navigation, but also on organisational change. In Europe, for example, improvements in ATM are
hampered by differing national equipment and standards.

Such change will also require the necessary incentives and drivers. The UK’s National Air Traffic
Services have recently been privatised and must respond to the needs of their airline customers.
At airports already limited by operational capacity, customers have required NATS to make the
best use of capacity. Given the frequency of flights at busy airports, and that operational
difficulties often lead to delays, aircraft can queue before take off and fly in stacks before landing.
Unless substantial economic or regulatory incentives are put in place, it is unlikely that these
demands will change. An alternative, which the DfT intends to implement, is to place NATS
under a statutory duty to consider environmental factors in its work. Indeed, environmental
guidance to the CAA suggests that improving operational efficiency from departure gate to arrival
gate should minimise flight times and distances, and hence reduce fuel use (and emissions).

Flight paths
The effect of greenhouse gas emissions from aviation depends on an aircraft’s latitude, altitude
and even the weather during the flight. This is particularly true of the water vapour emitted
because formation of contrails and of cirrus clouds is dependent on how much water vapour is
already present in the atmosphere, while the direct greenhouse effect of water vapour depends on
the altitude at which it is released. The RCEP suggested that aircraft could be routed to avoid
areas where contrails or cirrus are likely to form, or to minimise the greenhouse effect of water
vapour released. Other studies have suggested that lowering the standard aircraft cruise altitude
would reduce the overall greenhouse effect despite the increase in drag and hence higher fuel use
at lower altitudes.

However, current understanding of the effects of aircraft emissions on climate changes is not
sufficient to form the basis for any worldwide efforts to alter routes and flight paths. Moreover,
current ATM systems are not designed to deal with such a situation. However, as knowledge of
climate change improves, flight paths could be designed to minimise climate impacts.

Nevertheless, the Greener by Design group pointed out that something could be done now. As
discussed above, long haul flights use more fuel per kilometre travelled because they need to
carry more fuel - much of it necessary just to carry the fuel itself! Dividing the longest flights into
shorter sectors of around 7,500 km could reduce fuel use on these flights by up to a quarter.
However, this would create additional safety risks and environmental impacts at the transit
airports, and may even mean constructing additional airports to serve such shorter hopping
journeys (e.g. in northern Canada to serve transpolar routes) which would bring new risks. Also,
passengers would be unlikely to relish longer journey times, so this approach is unlikely without
significant regulatory or economic pressures.

Overall potential reductions in greenhouse gas emissions

A number of organisations have attempted to estimate the potential for improvements in the fuel
efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of aircraft. The IPCC assumed increases of fuel
efficiency of around 1% per year, leading to about a 50% improvement by 2050. In contrast, a
study for the DETR on the potential of new aircraft technologies predicted fuel efficiency
improvements of 2% per annum63. ACARE has a target of 50% reduction in fuel burn by 202064.

63
Arthur D Little, Study into the Potential Impact of Changes in Technology on the Development of Air Transport in the
UK, November 2000.
64
Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe, Strategic Research Agenda, October 2002.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Effects on the global atmosphere Page 48

Given the limits to technological options outlined earlier, these targets seem somewhat ambitious.
Indeed, the RCEP concluded that, “we have received no evidence suggesting that technological
improvements are in prospect beyond those considered by the IPCC”. Further, the Greener by
Design group believe that the IPCC targets themselves were unlikely to be achieved without
incentives beyond the current economic drivers to increase fuel efficiency. However, RollsRoyce
points out that on current rates of aircraft replacement, fuel efficiency may improve by around
one-third in the next decade (compared with 1990). This would correspond to an improvement
rate of 1.5% per year.

6.4 Further incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Mechanisms have been proposed to reduce greenhouse emissions from aviation and to provide
incentives for further technological and operational improvements:
• voluntary agreements – where industry and governments collectively agree target reductions
in emissions, either at EU or international level. While this could be introduced more quickly
than a new fiscal or regulatory scheme, it may set unchallenging reduction targets, based on
modest ‘business as usual’ incremental improvements. However, RollsRoyce has argued that
business as usual may represent the optimum situation in terms of what can be delivered
cost-effectively.
• emissions charges – where airlines or passengers are charged a fee related to the emissions
produced by a particular flight. Fees could be retained within the industry, and may be
charged according to the levels of greenhouse gases emitted. Since improving fuel efficiency
to reduce CO2 emissions can increase NOx emissions, charging for both CO2 and NOx would
be needed to reduce the overall contribution of aviation to climate change (see box).
• emissions trading – where airlines could buy and sell emissions permits related to a capped
quantity of greenhouse gas emissions. This system is now being created for CO2 emissions
from other sectors (particularly electricity generation). Here, businesses that find it easiest to
make emissions reductions sell their permits to others who essentially then pay for their extra
emissions. Issues peculiar to the aviation sector include how permits would be initially
allocated, and how the impacts of water vapour and NOx can be included alongside CO2. If
operated internationally and as part of a system open to trading between other sectors, this
option is favoured by the Government, the aviation industry and environmental groups.
• aviation fuel tax – Both the European Commission and the UK Government have considered
introducing an aviation fuel tax for environmental reasons. However, under ICAO regulations,
fuel tax cannot be introduced on fuel for international flights. The option exists therefore, for
domestic or EU-wide aviation fuel taxes. Were the UK to introduce a such a domestic fuel
tax, airlines may be encouraged to fill up outside the UK, resulting in aircraft carrying more
fuel than necessary on some journeys and so increasing emissions and noise. Even an EU-
wide fuel tax could suffer from such a ‘tankering’ effect. The Government has estimated that
a 100% fuel tax would increase airfares by 10%. However, increasing competition among the
low-cost carriers is likely to reduce fares. The overall effect of these opposing trends is
uncertain. So it is not clear at what level aviation fuel taxes would need to be set to reduce
overall greenhouse gas emissions from this sector. Another question is whether and how
proceeds collected by EU governments could be returned to the industry to encourage
improvements in environmental performance. The Government has recently held discussions
on these issues with industry and environment groups65.

65
It is also worth noting that Budget 2003 froze the rate of airport passenger duty, and the Treasury’s own assessment of
the environmental effects of the budget measures stated that this would lead to a small increase in CO2 emissions.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Effects on the global atmosphere Page 49

Emissions charges for greenhouse gases from aviation

The European Commission recently published the results of a study examining how a charging scheme could
be introduced in the EU in practice. The study proposed two options:
• a charge related to the environmental cost of the CO2 and NOx emissions of the flight concerned
• a revenue-neutral scheme in which airlines would pay a charge or receive a rebate depending on the
environmental performance of their aircraft.

The study examined what would happen if the emissions charges were passed directly to passengers. It
estimated that, under the first option, ticket prices would increase between 4 and 17 euros for a one-way
flight. This, the study predicted, would both suppress demand and encourage fuel efficiency by operators. As
a consequence, the study concluded that CO2 emissions could be up to 13% lower in 2010 than they would
otherwise have been, with the exact degree of reduction depending on the level of the charge. Effects of the
revenue neutral scheme were predicted to be less clear cut. Ticket prices would be expected to increase or
decrease by only a few euros and emissions reductions of around 6% could be expected.

A number of issues would need to be addressed before introducing any emissions charging scheme:
• the level of the charges There is still considerable uncertainty about the monetary valuation of the
environmental costs of CO2 and NOx emissions. Thus, rather than focussing on quantifying environmental
costs in financial terms, a charge could be set at a level designed to achieve a particular environmental
target
• the extent of the scheme The study assumed that charges could be imposed on emissions in EU airspace
only. Questions remain over whether the resulting charge for long-haul flights would be proportional to the
actual emissions.
• charging related to the fuel used A charge based on the actual greenhouse effect of a particular flight (e.g.
payload, route taken, altitude, design range of aircraft compared with distance flown) would provide the
greatest incentive to airlines to adopt more fuel efficient practices. However, the complexity of such a
scheme would be likely to make its introduction difficult in the near term.
• use of revenues Redistributing revenues raised by an EU scheme among Member States may be complex
and controversial. A simpler option, and one likely to be welcomed by the airline industry, would be to
reinvest the revenues into climate change reducing projects within the industry, such as ATC developments
or research into engine efficiency.

Source: Wit, R.C. et al. Economic incentives to mitigate greenhouse gas emission from air transport in
Europe, CE Delft, The Netherlands, 2002.

6.5 Overview
The mechanisms described above could contribute to reducing the climate change impact of
aviation, but the timescales over which they could be introduced vary. In the short-term,
voluntary agreements may be achievable on issues such as increasing the efficiency of air traffic
management, and using aircraft most appropriate for specific journeys. However, these options
are unlikely to reduce emissions significantly in the medium term. Further improvements in
engine design, airframe aerodynamics and an EU-based emissions charge could be effective -
although the latter would not reflect the full climate change impact of long-haul flights. In the
longer term, it is widely suggested that a move towards an international global emissions trading
scheme could stimulate radical innovation and help manage demand.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Effects on the global atmosphere Page 50
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Cross-cutting themes Page 51

7 Cross-cutting themes
The previous chapters have considered specific environmental impacts of aviation such as noise,
air pollution, and other effects on the local environment around an airport and on the global
atmosphere. In considering these further, it will be necessary to examine in more detail the issue
of demand management, such as shifting flights onto trains. However, given the space and time
constraints of this study, this has not been possible. In a report to ministers in 2001, the
Commission fro Integrated Transport recommended that further research would be required to
assess the impact of the relative levels of environmental impacts from domestic rail and air travel
on the specific routes. It found that such evaluations are sensitive to specific routes and the
distances travelled, and to underlying assumptions66.

Remaining focussed on aviation itself, a number of cross-cutting themes arise from the issues
discussed in previous chapters:
• the rate of innovation – the extent to which technological development can reduce
environmental impacts, set against forecast growth in air travel
• environmental capacity – the extent to which aviation growth can be accommodated within
the local and global environment
• operations and land use planning – in particular, innovations in airport and aircraft
operations, and the use of the planning system to minimise and mitigate adverse effects
• economic instruments to provide incentives to reduce environmental effects from aviation
• environmental impacts in a wider context – in particular looking at the environmental effects
of aviation alongside social and economic factors – i.e. examining what ‘sustainable
development’ might mean in relation to aviation.

The issue of demand management, such as shifting flights onto high-speed trains is outside the
scope of this report.

7.1 Technological issues

The rate of innovation
Each of the previous chapters has outlined the scope to minimise and mitigate the environmental
impacts of aviation using technological means. For instance, aircraft engines and airframes can
be made quieter, the emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases can be reduced by
improving the efficiency of engines, and the environmental impacts of airport operations can be
lessened through careful engineering and mitigation (e.g. recycling wastes, ensuring energy
efficiency in buildings, locating infrastructure away from sensitive habitats and historical
buildings. In some circumstances these can be relocated and reconstructed elsewhere).

Such technological advances require on-going research and development, but an issue arises over
the incentives aircraft manufacturers and airport operators have to effect such improvements. In
the areas of noise and air pollution, there are regulatory standards in place (ICAO noise and
emissions standards, and European and national air quality objectives). Backing up these
regulations are threats of financial penalties (on noise) or criminal sanction (for water pollution).
The sections of this report on mitigating noise, air pollution and impacts on the global climate all
point to the likely diminishing returns of such an approach to mitigating environmental damage
from aviation, particularly where air travel continues to grow. Indeed, in these areas,
technological improvements to control noise, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, even

66
A Comparative Study of the Environmental Effects of Rail and Short-haul Air Travel, Advice to Ministers, Commission
for Integrated Transport, December 2001.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Cross-cutting themes Page 52

when available, or close to being available, will not become widely adopted throughout national
or global aircraft fleets within the next 15-20 years. Moreover, were air travel to grow at forecast
rates, these improvements would be negated within a decade by the increase in flights and (in
the specific case of local air pollution) by the increased numbers of staff and passengers
accessing airports.

However, evidence from a broad range of research67 into what drives businesses to meet or go
beyond environmental standards indicates that, while command and control style regulation can
stimulate technological improvement, this tends to be slow and progresses in small steps.
Overall, it is unlikely that technological improvements will be able to offset environmental impacts
for more than a decade or so. Therefore, within the planning horizon for the government’s current
consultation on aviation (i.e. to 2030), it is highly likely that following a period of relative
improvement to around 2015-2020, local environmental impacts from aviation could worsen.
Indeed, as shown in chapter 3, growth at Heathrow could lead to 25,000 more people being
exposed to noise above the threshold for community annoyance than at present, even allowing for
improvements in technology68. In terms of climate change, however, a year-on-year increase in
emissions is likely as the growth in air travel continues to outstrip technological improvements.

Technological trade offs

Earlier chapters referred to the possibility that, while seeking to reduce one environmental effect
(e.g. noise), another can be exacerbated (e.g. air pollution). This raises the issue of whether
policy-makers are willing to trade off one potential environmental benefit against another. If so,
the question remains over the extent of any trade offs. Further, these complexities point to the
need for an integrated approach to research and development for aviation technologies that seek
to maximise reductions in several of the areas of potential environmental damage.

7.2 Environmental capacity

Setting local limits
The principle of ‘environmental capacity’ has been recognised by the European Commission
Transport Directorate General, which considered that limited environmental capacity could
constrain aviation growth. Such an approach, therefore, requires any future growth to be planned
according to the local environmental capacity available in areas around an airport. Indeed, the
Government has asked in its consultation The Future of Aviation, whether the concept of
environmental capacity limits can be successfully applied to UK airports, and, if so, how.

Environmental capacity appears to be an elegant, logical and simple concept. In reality, defining,
measuring and evaluating such capacity is far from straightforward. The concept assumes that
the natural world possesses certain features and operates with certain processes that can
assimilate environmental impacts up to specific limits that can be delineated through scientific
study. However, natural systems are inherently uncertain, complex and contain many factors
that can make precise and stable predictions very difficult. Added to this, are the uncertain
influences of human activities on such systems. Setting environmental capacity limits, therefore,
while amenable to scientific investigation to a large degree, also requires subjective judgements,
such as the levels of environmental quality desired, and the extent to which social and economic
issues are taken into account in deciding these limits. The box on the next page outlines five
possible types of environmental capacity limits.

67
The literature in this area is large, but useful summaries are available, for example, see Cleaning Up? Stimulating
innovation in environmental technology, POST report 136, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2000.
68
Chapter 3 showed, however, that this threshold may not be a precise indicator of the true extent of annoyance, as
some living inside the contour will not be affected, while others living outside will be adversely affected.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Cross-cutting themes Page 53

Types of environmental capacity limits

Thresholds below which no observable adverse effects are observable. An example here would be air
quality standards for NO2 which are based on well-characterised relationships between the concentration
of pollutant and its effects. However, at present, identifying the different sources of NO2 is difficult.
Risk-based limits where the relationship between exposure and effect is less certain, and so limits are set
on the basis of an assessment of an acceptable level of risk. This needs to take due account of the need to
comply with the precautionary principle69, which is a key element of EU and UK environmental law. Also,
risk-based limits need to respect the doctrine that risk management measures are proportionate to the risks
and benefits of exposure.
Legal requirements to maintain environmental pollutants to below certain levels – such as night-time noise
restrictions and conditions on planning consents.
Voluntary agreements between airport operators, airlines, local authorities and local communities to
maintain environmental burdens within limits derived from forecasts of future growth.
Overarching policy objectives, such as the proposition (endorsed by ECAC) requiring that, on average, in
the short term noise nuisance does not worsen, and that it improves in the long term. Here, as the policy
is framed in terms of the average, if noise were to worsen around an airport, improvements would be
needed elsewhere.

Environmental capacity in practice

To develop the discussion of environmental capacity for aviation to a more sophisticated level,
consideration of its environmental impacts compared with those from other modes of transport
would be needed. However, as discussed above, this is beyond the scope of this current study,
although this report will hopefully inform the wider debate. Nevertheless, another key problem in
the environmental capacity approach (applied to any development) is the boundaries within
which any such assessment would be made. In relation to aviation in particular, there are clearly
activities with a direct impact on the environment, such as noise, land-take and air pollution, but
other issues stemming from beyond the immediate boundary of the airport are also apparent (e.g.
traffic accessing the airport, the manufacture of aircraft and waste disposal).

Given these difficulties, a useful opening stage might be to consider environmental capacity in a
more disaggregated way, concentrating on individual issues as they arise. For example, there
may be a capacity constraint that can be defined for noise. Indeed, noise contours (such as the
57dBA Leq threshold for annoyance) is one attempt to do this – notwithstanding the uncertainties
over the precise nature of the relationship between noise levels and frequency of overflying, and
their effects on annoyance, sleep disturbance and health. Similarly, exceeding air quality
objectives may constrain future growth in aviation.

Questions remain, however, over what practical actions could be taken in the event of one or
more of these capacity constraints being exceeded. One option may be to curtail the operation of
the airport (e.g. restricting flights or surface access by road vehicle). However, it is not clear
whether exceeding capacity limits is sufficient in itself warrants curtailing of operations. Such
trade-offs need to take account of wider economic and social costs, but should also recognise
remaining uncertainties and the need (under EU and UK law) to comply with the precautionary
principle..

Similarly, in planning new developments, using the concept of environmental capacity effectively
may depend on broader issues, such as other whether and when new developments occur near
an airport. For instance, the numbers of people currently adversely affected by noise or air
pollution from a rural airport (such as East Midlands airport) are relatively small (compared say
with Heathrow), so that airport could be said to be operating within its environmental capacity for

69
There are many definitions of the precautionary principle, but is widely understood to mean that the lack of full
scientific knowledge about a significant environmental risk should not stop cost-effective action from being taken to
counter it.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Cross-cutting themes Page 54

noise and air pollution. However, should new housing be developed close to the airport, even
without any growth in air traffic using the airport, larger numbers of people would be at risk of
high noise or pollution levels and this could erode or even compromise the environmental
capacity of the airport. The precise options adopted to ensure that the fewest numbers of people
become exposed to noise above the annoyance threshold, or to air pollution above the air quality
objective, would need careful planning adapted to the specifics of each situation.

7.3 Operations and land use planning

Operations
Each of the previous chapters pointed to a number of operational activities that could be brought
to bear to reduce specific types of environmental impact, for example using noise preferential
routes to reduce noise, or running long haul flights in a series of shorter legs to improve fuel
efficiency. While some of these are perhaps more practical than others, it does point to the
overall need to consider airport and aircraft operations in a more strategic way, alongside
technological developments, for instance, in setting national standards for acceptable noise
exposure, and in providing consistent guidance to managing such effects. This points to the need
for a partnership between manufacturers, airport operations, community groups, local and central
governments, regulators and air traffic controllers to devise and operate strategic plans for
environmental management at airports that are matched to local conditions and priorities, but
referenced to a common set of principles and guidelines (possibly based on the environmental
capacity approach described above, taking account of its limitations).

Overall, there is more scope in the land use planning system to counter the adverse effects of
aviation, and indeed, the ICAO’s balanced approach to managing aviation noise requires the use
of land use planning, rather than relying only on technological and operational improvements.
Thus, in the vicinity of an airport, some have suggested the need for flexible planning. In this
way, environmental capacity limits would be set in accordance with local circumstances,
reflecting the balance between the costs and benefits of aviation that affected communities felt
were appropriate.

Financial recompense
Where prevention of environmental damage at source is not practicable, compensation may
represent the last resort. Current provisions covering blight enable some landowners to require
affected land to be purchased at open market value. Owners whose property is compulsorily
acquired are eligible for compensation of the value of their property, as well as disturbance
payments to cover the cost of moving and home loss payments worth a further 10% of the
property value. The Government is considering new legislation to extend the loss payment
scheme to cover businesses and agricultural units and increase the minimum and maximum
payments.

A question arises over the extent to which compensation should be available to those who have
already purchased properties of lower value in noise-affected areas, as opposed to those who are
affected by new airports or new activities at existing airports. One approach may be to make
explicit during property transactions the extent to which properties are exposed to current or
expected future noise impacts.

Land use planning and appraisal of airport developments

The UK land use planning system regulates the development and use of land in the public
interest. Planning aims to ensure that already developed land is used efficiently, development
patterns are shaped in ways that minimise the need to travel, and that both cultural heritage and
natural resources are conserved, particularly in those areas that are designated as nationally or
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Cross-cutting themes Page 55

internationally important. In the UK the responsibility for protecting the environment is spread
across many different public bodies, but a key role is played by the regulation of land use through
town and country planning.

It is not always necessary to make a specific application for planning permission because certain
types of development are covered by general planning permission given through a the General
Permitted Development Order, which allows for airport development, but only under a range of
restrictions. Planning permission is still required for:
• construction or extension of a runway
• construction of a passenger terminal with floor space in excess of 500 square metres
• extension or alteration of a passenger terminal by more than 15% of the floor space of the
original building
• erection of a building other than an operational building
• alteration or reconstruction of a building other than an operational building where its design or
external appearance would be materially affected.

Despite the above, airport operators have much discretion to expand their terminal buildings,
stands and aprons without having to obtain further planning permission. As a result, the
numbers of passengers and aircraft movements can exceed the numbers stated during the
planning process. Local authorities argue that this makes a mockery of the environmental
statements produced at the time of a planning application, and that some form of more robust
legal safeguards should be introduced to restrict the upward creep of capacity. While it is outside
of the scope of this report to consider further the particulars of the planning process for airports,
the next section provides an overview of the requirements for and methods of assessing the
environmental impacts of airport developments.

Assessing the environmental effects of aviation

The primary purpose of environmental planning is to prevent breaches of environmental
constraints and to make choices about the required state of the environment. To do this,
information is needed about the likely effects of a development on various aspects of the
environment, and the extent to which these exceed formal and informal measures of
environmental constraints. These may range from statutory standards, such as on water quality,
to more esoteric issues such as landscape quality. The annexe to chapter 7 provides more detail
on the principles and methods of environmental assessment70. It should be noted that developers
may use environmental assessment to pre-empt regulatory controls, or merely to achieve the
minimum possible compliance.

Environmental assessment needs be able to access and make use of high quality information on
the structure and dynamics of environmental systems, the current state of the environment, the
pressures on it and its likely response. It is assumed that the easy accessibility of this
information should help developers to put in realistic applications, decision-makers to make
informed judgements and the public to become actively involved. However, while good quality
environmental information is essential for achieving environmentally sustainable use and
management of land, it is not always available. Further, the quality of environmental appraisals
is not always high and local planning authorities sometimes lack the capacity to make most
effective use of them. Thus, the effectiveness of the planning system requires public confidence,
improved access to environmental information (see the box on the next page), and rigorous and
valid methods of assessment when making decisions about large-scale developments with
potentially significant environmental effects.

70
Appraising major infrastructure projects, POSTnote 173, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2002.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Cross-cutting themes Page 56

Public participation in environmental decision-making

The importance of providing open access to environmental information has become firmly established in recent
years. Available data in a form that can be easily used and understood by the general public will help to raise
the level of debate and improve the transparency of decision making. For some decades, legislation covering
pollution control, waste sites and discharges to water has contained provisions requiring information on
licences and monitoring data to be made available in public registers. Broader provisions were set out in a
1990 EC Directive on access to environmental information. This Directive was later augmented by the 1998
UN Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to
Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention), which placed public access to environmental
information at the heart of achieving environmental justice and improving decision-making.

One of the objectives of the Aarhus Convention is to guarantee the rights of the public to participate in certain
kinds of environmental decision-making, to contribute to the protection of the right to live in an environment
that is adequate to personal health and well-being . The Convention was signed by the European Community
on the 25th June 1998 and is considered to be one of the most important efforts to ensure that the public have
access to environmental decision-making. To ratify the Aarhus convention, the European Commission has
proposed a Directive to establish basic procedures for public involvement and to consolidate and enhance the
rights of the public to participate in environmental decision-making.

Proposed changes to the planning system

In December 2001, the Government produced a green paper aimed at promoting fundamental
change to the planning system in England. Stemming from that consultation, the Government
introduced the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill to the House of Commons in December
2002. The purpose of the bill is to speed up the planning system, particularly for major
infrastructure projects. It includes provisions to enable the Secretary of State - if he considers a
development to be of national or regional importance – to direct that a planning application must
be referred to him rather than dealt with by the local planning authority.

7.4 Meeting the environmental costs of aviation

The Government’s consultation on the future of aviation asked about aviation’s external
environmental costs. Environmental groups argued that the ‘polluter pays’ principle should apply
to aviation and that the industry should pay its full external costs. Aviation and travel
organisations agreed and argued that aviation should be allowed to expand to meet demand if it
paid its external costs. Some respondents claimed that aviation already met its external costs
through payment of airport passenger duty. However, environmental groups argued that it was
difficult to provide monetary costs for all environmental damage. Thus, where aviation could (or
did) pay monetised costs for environmental damage, capacity should still not necessarily be
provided, as the full costs of environmental damage were unlikely to be known. Many
respondents observed that more research was needed to quantify aviation’s external costs.

On the question of how external environmental costs should best be met, many respondents
commented that a mix of economic instruments and regulation would be the best approach.
Policy instruments put forward included variable noise and emissions related landing charges, tax
on aviation fuel or tradable emissions permits. Several also said there should be a statutory body
to regulate the environmental effects of aviation. There was support from almost two-thirds of
respondents for a national framework within which local environmental effects such as aircraft
noise should be tackled, although most agreed on the need for local discretion. Views on
voluntary agreements were mixed, with some concerned about their enforceability and others
favouring them. The majority of respondents also agreed that it should be possible to vary
economic instruments with location and time to reflect the actual impact of the emission
concerned e.g. charges relating to noise could be higher at night or in densely populated areas.
However, a number of aviation industry respondents opposed this concept due to concerns over
effect on prices, competition and ability to schedule flights.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Cross-cutting themes Page 57

Many commented that the international nature of the aviation industry meant that environmental
consequences could most effectively be tackled through international forums. There was also
support for using revenues from any environmental charges for mitigation measures or research to
improve the environmental performance of the aviation industry in future.

In discussion of the environmental costs of human activities, one issue remains. This is related to
the size of environmental costs relative to other costs. In particular, if environmental costs are
only a small component of overall costs, business and customers may well be willing to pay these
without curtailing or amending their activities in any way. Thus, it is important to recognise that
internalising external costs and passing these on to customers, or through the supply chain will
not change actual behaviour unless it is at the margin of cost acceptability. This has prompted
some to argue that additional government intervention is needed, e.g. through regulation,
charging, or further taxation, beyond the immediate external costs. However, others counter that
if environmental costs are fully internalised, but nevertheless, consumers choose to incur them
rather than change their behaviour, this simply serves to reflect the high value they place on the
availability of the goods or services (the ‘inelasticity of demand’).

The Treasury and DfT have reviewed the use of economic instruments to manage environmental
impacts of aviation. The box on the next page summarises the report. Overall, it suggest that the
environmental costs from carbon emissions, noise and air pollution total £1.7 billion in 2000,
and that this may rise to £5.6 billion by 2030. The cost estimates are dominated by those of the
effects of carbon emissions on global warming. There remain considerable uncertainties over the
figures and assumptions used in the analysis. In addition, questions remain over whether the
costs included in the analysis are able to capture fully the true range of environmental costs – for
instance whether the house-price technique used for costing noise impacts takes account of the
full range of social costs, such as psychological impacts, and knock-on effects, e.g. on health care
costs, productivity and educational achievement. Also, the report is incomplete, insofar as it does
not provide estimates of the future costs for noise and air pollution beyond 2000.

The Treasury and DfT are consulting on this report, and asking for comments on what economic
instruments could be used to tackle the environmental impacts of aviation. They wish to
determine which instruments would be most desirable in terms of providing the best incentives
for the aviation industry to take account of its environmental impacts, their administrative
feasibility and ensuring that undesirable economic impacts are minimised. The House of
Commons Environmental Audit Committee will be examining progress on this issue as part of its
scrutiny of the 2003 budget. It is expected to report on this before the summer recess. The
Government has said that it will hold discussions on the environmental costs of aviation with
industry groups, national environmental groups, public bodies and the expert community, and
that it will set out its views in the air transport White Paper expected towards the end of 2003.

7.5 Environmental impacts in a wider context

What is ‘sustainable’ aviation?
The main focus of this report has been on the environmental impacts of aviation; specifically
noise, atmospheric emissions, and other local impacts related to the use of land for airport
developments. However, these debates take place in a context where environmental issues are
increasingly being seen as part of a wider discussion about the need to reconcile environmental,
economic and social implications of developments. This is the so-called ‘sustainable
development’ agenda. This section summarises the range of meanings of this term and how they
may relate to aviation. Initially, however, it should be emphasised that there is no single widely
agreed definition of sustainable development in general and similarly, no agreed framework within
which to discuss it in relation to aviation.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Cross-cutting themes Page 58

Costing the environmental impacts of aviation

The Government announced in its 2002 Pre-Budget report that it would discuss with ‘stakeholders’ the
most effective economic instruments for ensuring that the aviation industry is encouraged to take account
of, and where appropriate reduce, its contribution to global warming, local air pollution and noise,
although it also recognised a wide variety of other environmental impacts from the development of airport
capacity (particularly impacts on land use, heritage and ecology).71.

Climate change costs were derived using an estimate of the cost of a tonne of carbon (of £70 per tonne
now, and increasing in real terms by £1 per year), based on a valuation undertaken by the Government
Economic Service72. This valuation took no account of significant uncertainties, including uncertainties in
the science of climate change, the broader social impacts of climate change (such as famine and mass
migrations), and the choice of discount rate. It suggested that a sensitivity range of £35-£140 per tonne
should be used in subsequent calculations. Thus, based on the current and forecast future emissions of
carbon from aviation in the UK, the government has estimated a central cost of £1.4billion per year for
2000, rising to £4.8 billion per year by 2030. However, using the upper and lower boundaries of the
sensitivity analysis suggested by the Government Economic Service, these figures could range from £0.7-
2.8 billion in 200 to £2.4-£9.6 billion by 2030.

Noise costs were estimated using a mechanism known as hedonic pricing. This uses the difference in
house prices between equivalent properties in noisy and less noisy areas (all other things being equal).
This method generates the effective ‘rent’ that a resident pays for living in a less noisy environment. The
value of this rent has been estimated from previous academic work in this area73. Summing this value
over the number of properties affected by noise over the 57dB(A) threshold for community annoyance,
yielded a cost of £25m per year in 2000. However, the academic work used in the valuation also
suggested another more accurate approach, which if used would generate a cost in excess of £66m per
year in 2000. The valuation by the Treasury and DfT did not include estimates for the costs of noise
exposure in 2030.

Air quality costs were estimated using a method set out in a Dutch study74. The DfT/Treasury paper did
not set out the detail of this method, but estimated the range of costs to be £119m-£236m per year in
2000. Again, the analysis does not include any estimates for the costs of air pollution in 2030.

Rather than being able to define what ‘sustainable’ aviation may mean (either in principle or
practice), it may be more useful to point out aspects of aviation that are clearly unsustainable
(such as ever-worsening noise impacts75), and to indicators that inform policy-makers about
whether the sector is moving away from, or towards such unsustainable practices. Underpinning
much of the discussion about the environmental impacts of aviation is the question of how the
effects can be mitigated, while still allowing growth in aviation.

Analysis of the sustainability of aviation needs to take place within inherent boundaries, described
in the box on the next page. Some have argued that it is still possible to at least agree on some
general principles against which the sustainability of aviation could be discussed. For example,
using more materials and resources (e.g. fuel or concrete) for the same purpose has a higher
environmental impact than the use of less material – although this may offset costs, and
associated environmental impacts, elsewhere in the economy, e.g. by reducing labour costs.
However, focussing on the narrower environmental aspects of aviation, this points towards two
possible routes for ‘sustainable’ aviation:
• eco-efficiency – where fewer resources are consumed for each unit of productivity (e.g. less
fuel per passenger-kilometre). This reduces aviation’s relative environmental impact
• reducing absolute impacts – where the absolute quantities of materials and resources flowing
into, and wastes flowing out from the aviation system are minimised and do not increase.

71
HM Treasury and Department for Transport, Aviation and the environment: using economic instruments, March
2003.
72
Government Economic Service, Estimating the social costs of carbon emissions: Working Paper 140 2002.
73
Pearce, B. and Pearce, D. Setting environmental taxes for aircraft: a case study of the UK. CSERGE Working Paper
GEC 2000-26. University of East Anglia, 2000.
74
CE Delft, External Costs of aviation, 2002.
75
Or indeed, an ever growing burden of greenhouse gas emissions for the foreseeable future.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Cross-cutting themes Page 59

Boundaries of sustainable aviation

• Geography – sustainability can relate to issues that could be significant on a scale from the local to the
global. For instance, the loss of a local wildlife habitat from airport construction could be significant on
a local scale, but might be less significant at any larger scale, from regional through national to
international. In addition, impacts at one location are inevitably different than at another.
• Time – sustainability only has meaning if consideration is given to the timescales over which particular
activities or natural features would be sustained. Thus, questions arise over whether sustainability is
sought over immediate, short, long or indefinite timescales.
• System - it is not necessarily meaningful to ask whether aviation is sustainable either as a system or as
a series of components (aircraft and airports). This is because there are a very large number of other
components, whose sustainability may itself impinge on that of aviation. For example, the effects on
the environment of the extraction of oil and its refining to make kerosene.
• Knowledge – decisions about the sustainability of any activity must relate to its impacts on the
environment, social systems economic activities. This requires understanding of ecological and human
systems and how these interact. Current understanding of these areas is not complete, so
considerations of sustainability are limited within the context of what is known and understood.
Nevertheless, there is still a need to recognise and acknowledge scientific uncertainties and unknowns.

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) concluded that “it is essential that
the government should divert resources into encouraging and facilitating a modal shift from air
to high-speed rail.”76. To achieve this, the Commission recommended that government should
“restrict airport development to encourage greater competition for, and raise the implicit price
of, the available take-off and landing slots, in order to optimise the use of those slots towards
longer-haul flights and to increase the prospects for a modal shift to rail for domestic journeys.”
Also, it recommend that government should “encourage a modal shift to more environmentally
benign methods of transport for short-haul flights, including the development of major airports
into land-air hubs integrated with an enhanced rail network.”

By contrast, many airport operators, while concerned to address environmental impacts of

aviation, seek to mitigate, but not limit (or even reduce) local impacts. In this way, current
environmental management of aviation relates more to the eco-efficiency approach than to the
reducing absolute impacts approach.

A sustainable approach to the environmental impacts of aviation would involve trading off of
economic, environmental and social benefits77, according to the relative priorities attached by
consumers to each. Some argue that environmental factors need to be given special
consideration in this process but this may lead to a less than optimum development path by
restricting the efficient use of environmental capacity. This is an issue which is being examined
by the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee78.

7.6 Overview
The Government is consulting on the future of aviation in the UK over the next 30 years. It will
identify which airports should be expanded, or whether new airports need to be constructed.
However, it is concerned that any expansion should minimise environmental impacts.

As economic, social and environmental issues often give rise to conflict and the need for trade-
offs, the issue remains of how best to make decisions against the backdrop of sustainable
development. Here it is important to examine critically the role of economic instruments in
seeking to ensure that the full environmental costs of aviation are reflected in the pricing of air

76
Although providing additional rail infrastructure and services will itself carry economic, social and environmental costs
and benefits. A comparison of the costs and benefits of aviation with those of rail is beyond the scope of this report.
77
Including safety.
78
Environmental Audit Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2002-03, Pre-Budget Report 2002, HC 167. March 2003.
London: The Stationery Office Limited.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Cross-cutting themes Page 60

travel. Such instruments can seek to reflect either the marginal costs of reducing environmental
impacts or the real costs of the environmental damage caused. It is important to recognise that
these are not necessarily the same. In addition, it can be very difficult, and some would say
impossible, to reflect true environmental costs, particularly for environmental resources that are
irreplaceable in any reasonable timeframe – and here climate stability is seen as one such
resource. Aviation, like all other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, will give rise to
environmental costs. Although defining precise values for these costs is likely to prove difficult, it
is likely that a broad range of possible prices, and upper limits beyond which damage costs are
unlikely to rise, can be identified.

This raises the issue of the extent to which it is possible to define and put in place limits to the
growth of aviation based on the ideas of environmental capacity. While limits might be set for
local effects, such as noise and air pollution, and there are signs that these might well constrain
the growth of aviation in some locations, it is by no means clear how environmental capacity
limits could be set for the effects of aviation on the global atmosphere.

Therefore, a key point to finish on is the process of decision-making. Overall, it is for Government
to decide in policy terms, whether and how far it will allow the growth in air travel to continue.
Some constraints exist due to physical limits in the absence of new infrastructure, but
environmental constraints (e.g. for noise and air pollution) are likely without substantial
improvements in technology, airport operations or innovative uses of land-use planning. Thus,
there is a need to consider the relative importance of environmental impacts alongside local,
regional and national economic and social benefits – the fundamental principle of ‘sustainable
development’.

Public participation in environmental decision-making is now a legal requirement, and this will be
strengthened in the coming years with the implementation of the Aarhus Convention. This
presents an opportunity for the Government (and the devolved administrations) to embark on a
significant debate at a national level on the future of air travel. The current consultation on the
options for airport expansion goes some way towards this. However, from recent experience of
debates on contentious issues in science and technology, particularly genetically modified crops
and radioactive waste79, there is much greater scope for a broad debate that allows the public to
participate more effectively, and to address the range of issues of concern to them. The white
paper provides an opportunity for DfT to explore ways in which it might seek to undertake such
broader discussions, particularly in listening to the voices of the ‘silent majority’.

The forecast growth in air traffic is likely to outstrip technological improvements to reduce
environmental impacts. The key question remaining is whether growth should be constrained to
stay within environmental limits, or whether the environmental impacts arising from meeting
anticipated demand can be justified against other social and economic factors.

79
Public dialogue on science and technology, POSTnote 189, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology,
November 2002. See also Open Channels: public dialogue in science and technology, POST report 153,
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, March 2001.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Annex to Chapter 3 Page 61

Annex to Chapter 3: Noise contouring

Contour accuracy
Measuring or modelling aircraft noise accurately is difficult. Noise monitors used for measuring
actual noise inevitably detect all noise regardless of its source. They therefore need to be
carefully sited and the measured noise compared with data on actual aircraft movements.
Modelling of aircraft noise is also imperfect; the noise heard on the ground from a particular
arrival or departure will depend not only on the aircraft type and take-off weight, but also on the
procedures followed by the pilot, and on the weather and wind speed and direction. High quality
noise contours are usually considered accurate to around one decibel. In a densely populated
area increasing or decreasing a noise contour by one decibel could increase or decrease the
population within that contour by as much as 20%. Hence noise contours, although a valuable
tool in analysing noise impact of changes in airport use, cannot be viewed as infallible. Many of
those living outside the contour will be disturbed by noise, while some living within it will not.
Equally, small errors in noise modelling or in estimates of future airport use could severely over or
underestimate the population currently affected by noise, or likely to be affected in future. For
this reason, the DfT’s recent consultation included indications of both the 57 and 54dB(A) Leq
contours for many of the proposed developments.

Criticisms of Leq as a measurement of aircraft noise

Averaging
Community and environmental groups point out a number of limitations with use of Leq as a
measure of noise around airports. Leq measures average noise levels, and can therefore conceal
considerable variations in noise level derived from differences in the way that different runways
are operated.

Extremely loud events may have a disproportionate effect on Leq contours. For example, during
2001, when Concorde was grounded following an accident, the population exposed to noise
levels above 57dB(A) Leq around Heathrow shrank by 13% compared with the previous year
while the number exposed to over 72dB(A) Leq halved80. This was despite the fact that Concorde
makes only a few arrivals and departures per day from the airport. Given that flights on the
approach to Heathrow continued (at the busiest times) at a rate of around one every 90 seconds
throughout 2001, it is questionable whether the exposed population viewed the loss of two flights
per day, albeit very noisy ones, as a significant reduction in noise. Attitudes to Concorde also
provide an interesting illustration of the subjective nature of responses to noise; despite Concorde
being louder than most other aircraft, some residents view a Concorde flying overhead as an
exciting event rather than a nuisance. British Airways announced in April 2003 that Concorde
flights would cease permanently from October 2003.

Relationship between noise levels and annoyance

Another difficulty is that discussion of noise exposure which focusses purely on the threshold level
of 57dB(A) Leq may hide consideration of how badly those within the noise contour are affected.
For example, a doubling in the number of flights approaching an airport, which is likely to be
perceived by those affected as a doubling in noise, results in a 3dB average increase in Leq.
Although this increase in noise would considerably expand the 57dB Leq contour around the
aiport concerned, looking at the 57dB(A) Leq contour map alone would not indicate that all those
already within the contour had experienced a doubling in aircraft noise. A complete picture of

80
Civil Aviation Authority, Noise Exposure Contours for Heathrow Airport 2001, prepared on behalf of the Department for
Transport, May 2002.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Annex to Chapter 3 Page 62

aircraft noise around an airport therefore necessitates looking not only at the 57dB Leq contour,
but also at further contours at intervals of, say 3dB up to 72dB(A), and this is precisely what DfT
does for the designated airports (Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted).

However, the principal concern of environmental and community groups with Leq is the 57dB(A)
level which the Government has chosen to use as a tool in policy making. They point to a World
Health Organisation study, Guidelines on Community Noise81, which proposes 55dB(A) as the
level above which there will be serious annoyance, and 50dB(A) as the onset of moderate
annoyance. The Government’s 57dB(A) Leq level was chosen following a 1980s study which
showed that this was a good indicator of the onset of ‘significant community annoyance82. This
figure also equates to advice from the World Health Organisation from that date. However, the
nature of aircraft noise has changed since the 1980s.

Although individual planes are quieter, the number of flights has increased dramatically at most
airports. Some argue that it is now the continuity of noise, rather than the loudness of particular
planes, which is the principal contributor to annoyance. It is also possible that rising living
standards have led to higher expectations among the general public about their local
environment.

The DfT has commissioned a new research study which will, among other things, re-examine the
relationship between measured aircraft noise levels and annoyance. Although preliminary results
from the project are due before publication of the White Paper on the future of air transport later
this year, final results will not be available until 2004. The recent consultation on options for
airport capacity expansion in the UK used the indicator from the 1980s study for assessing noise
impacts. Were the results of the current study to suggest that this measure is no longer valid or
should be improved, the basis of any decisions on locations of airport capacity to be announced
in the White Paper may be open to criticism.

Given the variety in, and subjectivity of, responses to noise, no single level can provide a cut-off
between those who are affected and those who are not. Environmental and community groups
argue that using the 57dB(A) Leq contour underestimates the actual numbers annoyed by aircraft
noise, as well as exacerbating annoyance for those affected outside the contour who feel that
their problem is unacknowledged.

In Sydney in 1998, 90% of complaints about aircraft noise came from outside a contour broadly
equivalent to the 55dB(A) Leq83, while at Gatwick around two-thirds of complaints come from
outside the 57dB(A) Leq contour84. Although the relation between actual levels of annoyance and
complaints is not clear cut, with disproportionate numbers of complaints being received from
affluent areas, these figures indicate that there is considerable community noise annoyance
outside the 57dB(A) Leq area.

81
World Health Organisation, Guidelines for Community Noise, 1999.
82
Brooker et al., United Kingdom Aircraft Noise Index Study (ANIS): main report – DR Report 8402, report for the Civil
Aviation Authority on behalf of the Department of Transport, January 1985.
83
Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services, Expanding ways to describe and assess aircraft noise,
2000.
84
BAA Gatwick, Flight Evaluation Report 2001/2.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Annex to Chapter 3 Page 63

Noise mapping and airport expansion: the Sydney experience

A third runway opened at Sydney’s Kingsford-Smith airport in November 1994. Prior to the expansion,
Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) contours were presented to give residents an indication of noise
impacts of the proposal. The ANEF contours are similar to the UK’s Leq measurement and measure average
sound energy over a period of time. During planning, noise outside the 20ANEF contour, approximately equal
to 55dB(A) Leq, was, to all intents and purposes, treated as being ‘insignificant’. After opening of the new
runway aircraft movements over the city’s northern suburbs rose from around 160 to around 370 per day.
There was an immediate outcry from residents in the northern suburbs of Sydney living under the new flight
paths who found themselves significantly disturbed by noise despite living outside the contours presented
during planning. This became a high profile political controversy, including creation of a single issue ‘No
Aircraft Noise Party’, and led to establishment of a Senate Select Committee on Aircraft Noise in Sydney.

The Senate Committee Report Falling on Deaf Ears concluded that opening of the third runway had “scarred a
city” and “irretrievably complicated the future of airport development in Australia”, as well as being an
“environmental and social tragedy”. It also commented that the policy in Sydney at the time of concentrating
noise pollution in one area was “a form of discrimination”. The Committee was also highly critical of use of
ANEF contours in informing the public about aircraft noise impacts. One local authority, in evidence to the
Committee, viewed indicators of average levels of aircraft noise as “meaningless”, both due to the significant
variation in noise exposure throughout a year and because it was typically the peak noise levels which caused
the greatest disturbance. The Committee also recommended that it was “essential” that information on noise
impacts outside the 20ANEF contour was provided to residents.

In response to the issues raised by the committee, the Australian Department of Transport and Regional
Services (DOTARS) has proposed an alternative approach to conveying information on aircraft noise. The
approach is intended to supplement the use of ANEF contours by providing a means of describing aircraft noise
to non-experts. Diagrams of flight paths to and from an airport are overlaid on a local map. For each flight
path, information can be provided on:
• Aircraft altitude at different points along the flight path
• The average daily number of aircraft on the flight path concerned
• The range of aircraft numbers between the quietest and busiest days
• The proportion of days with no aircraft movements on that flight path
• The proportion of total aircraft movements using the flight path concerned (to make residents aware to what
extent noise is ‘shared’ between different areas)
• ‘Respite hours’ – what percentage of the day, evening and night are typically free of overflights.

Information can be provided on a seasonal basis, or for a particularly sensitive time such as weekends or
nights. The figure opposite shows such a diagram for Sydney airport, compared with the 20 ANEF contour. It
is clear that information is provided on noise exposure of areas considerably beyond the contour. These more
intuitive approaches to representing aircraft noise have been welcomed by the community around Sydney
airport and similar methods are likely to be a part of the environmental impact assessment of any further
airport developments in Australia.

DOTARS also proposed providing information on the number of aircraft noise events in particular areas
exceeding a certain noise threshold, usually 70 dB(A), in a day. These maps provide another way of
describing aircraft noise in terms easy to understand. For instance, adding up the total number of individual
exposures to a threshold noise level (say 70 dB(A)) and dividing by the population exposed gives a measure of
average individual exposure. When the third runway at Sydney was opened, such measures increased
significantly despite the fact that the number of people within the 20 ANEF contour fell by around 30%. In
other words, although average noise exposure levels decreased, the number of times individuals were exposed
to noisy overflights increased, and this noise burden was concentrated on a smaller number of individuals.

Lessons for the UK

• Sydney residents felt that they had been misled by use of noise contours to give an indication of likely noise
impacts of the 3rd runway. Given that the UK’s recent consultation on aircraft expansion also uses noise
contours, it is possible that aircraft communities in the UK will have similar reactions.
• DOTARS proposed measuring noise exposure by the number of events above a given threshold, implying
that once noise reaches a level high enough to be intrusive, the level of noise beyond this is irrelevant. This
conclusion accords with the subjective experience of some UK airport communities, who report that it is the
frequency of noise events rather than the loudness of individual events which leads to annoyance.
• The Sydney experience also demonstrated that residents are most likely to be annoyed by and complain
about aircraft noise if they feel they have been misled about it. Those provided with information about
aircraft movements before moving in to an area would be less likely to find them annoying, as they would
have been given the opportunity to factor them into their decisions on whether to take up residence in that
area. This suggests that providing user-friendly information about aircraft noise to prospective house buyers
and tenants near major flight paths could reduce complaints about aircraft noise.
Sources: ‘Falling on Deaf Ears, Report of the Senate Select Committee on Aircraft Noise in Sydney, November
1995 and Expanding Ways to Describe and Assess Aircraft Noise, Department of Transport and Regional
Services, Australia, March 2000.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Annex to Chapter 3 Page 64

Informing communities
Environmental and community groups argue that use of Leq contours in discussing options for
airport expansion or changes in airport use is unhelpful. Contour maps may mistakenly lead
people to believe they will be unaffected by noise. In addition, communities often find it difficult
to interpret contour maps measured in decibels; rather they want to know where and how often
aircraft will be overflying, how loud this will be in comparison with the neighbour’s lawnmower,
what the worst and best days will be like, whether there will be quiet periods and, if so, at what
time of day. The uncertainty arising from feeling that they do not know what the actual
consequences of any proposal will be is a major source of anxiety for airport communities. These
points are discussed further in the box below, which describes the system of noise mapping
developed at Sydney airport in response to protests that noise contours produced for construction
of a new runway had misled residents as to the likely noise impacts.

Is there an alternative?
Some environmental groups argue that the Lden index would be a more appropriate index of noise
around airports. Lden attaches higher weight to evening noise than daytime noise and still higher
weight to night noise. A recent EU Directive, discussed in more detail in the next section, will
require member states to perform noise mapping around major airports using the Lden index from
2007. But Lden, like Leq, shares the disadvantage that it is difficult to interpret for those affected.
In response some airports have developed more intuitive ways of presenting aircraft noise. The
Australian approach described in the box on the previous page involves, among other things,
providing maps of flight paths with indications of the number of movements and times of those
movements on the flight paths, aircraft heights at different points on the flight path, and details of
typical daily or yearly quiet periods. In the UK Gatwick Airport provides maps of flight paths in
its Flight Evaluation Report, together with details of the percentage of flights using each path.
However, UK airports do not regularly provide information on use of flight paths, respite periods
or variation between ‘quiet’ and ‘noisy’ days, and only the designated airports regularly publish
flight path information.

Qualitative methods such as those described in the box are clearly not a universal solution to the
problem of measuring aircraft noise. For example, they cannot be used to determine possible
health effects, since the vast majority of research in this area uses Leq or Lden to measure noise
(health effects of aircraft noise are discussed further in section 3.2 in the main text). However,
these qualitative methods do provide a much more intuitive picture of noise levels to local
residents and could play an important role both in the planning process and in informing aiport
communities. There is clearly scope for the UK to develop a framework or best practice guidance
on provision of information on aircraft noise to local communities.

Overall, the question is not whether Lden is better or worse than Leq as a noise measure, but
whether one is more effective in explaining to the public what they can expect in terms of the
noise that could affect them. Thus, other ways of communicating might be to report the density
of flight paths, or the numbers of aircraft movements exceeding particular noise levels. DfT is
examining these issues, and is willing to consider introducing new means to communicate aircraft
noise if these prove suitable.
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Annex to Chapter 7 Page 65

Annex to Chapter 7: Environmental

assessment
In planning, the main use of environmental data and modelling is for the environmental
assessment of projects, programmes, plans and policies. Environmental assessment is the
method that is used to evaluate the effects that are likely to arise from a project, programme,
plan or policy that significantly affects the natural and artificial environment. The environmental
assessment of a project is referred to as environmental impact assessment and that of plans,
programmes and policies is called strategic environmental assessment. A more limited
assessment of the environmental impacts of the most potentially polluting industrial installations
is also required for projects that require a permit under the integrated pollution prevention and
control regime (IPPC). An IPPC environmental assessment covers emissions to air, water and
ground and sets targets for fuel efficiency and noise level.

Project Level Environmental Impact Assessment

Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is a systematic participatory process for identifying and
evaluating the probable environmental impacts of a proposed development. It helps to ensure
that the importance of the predicted effects, and the scope for reducing them, are properly
understood by the public and the relevant planning authority when it makes a decision as to
whether a project should be allowed to proceed.

EIA was introduced on an EU wide level in 1988 through the EU EIA Directive 85/337/EEC. This
was the first piece of EU legislation to require EIA to be carried out in the UK for development
projects that had the potential to cause large scale environmental disruption. This Directive was
later amended by Directive 97/11/EC which came into force in March 1997.

The EIA Directive identifies projects that always require EIA, which include airports (as well as
power stations, chemical plants, railways, major roads) and lists them in Annex I. Annex II
identifies projects that require EIA to be conducted if they are likely to have significant
environmental impacts, such as intensive agriculture, land reclamation, extractive mining etc.
(Circular 02/99). Annex II projects must be subjected to a preliminary environmental screening
process, and during the planning process the planning authority must make a decision on
whether a proposal that is listed as an Annex II development requires EIA.

The EIA process consists of a series of iterative steps and ideally is cyclical, with feedback and
interaction between the various stages. The figure on the next page shows the stages often
involved in EIA. This is a rather idealised and simplistic view, and in practice, the process can
vary; with stages operating in a different order or sometimes missed out altogether. The findings
of the EIA are contained within an environmental impact statement which, according to the EIA
Directive, must contain a description of the development, a description of the mitigation
measures, the data necessary to identify and assess the main effects, an outline of the main
alternatives considered and a non-technical summary.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Annex to Chapter 7 Page 66

Main steps in the environmental assessment process

Screening (Need for EIA)

Scoping (Impacts to be considered)

Impact Prediction
Public involvement
Evaluation and assessment of

Preparation of EIS

Post-decision monitoring

EIA in the UK is integrated into the planning consent procedure, and the EIA Directive is
implemented through over 40 different secondary regulations. Different regulations apply to
England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and are supplemented by guidance
documents. The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and
Wales]) (Amendment) Regulations 1999 account for 70% of EIAs conducted in the UK (Wood,
1995). Other Regulations are necessary for projects listed in Annex I and Annex II of the EU
Directive that are authorised outside of the English and Welsh planning system. Such
developments include motorways and trunk roads, certain types of power station, afforestation
projects and work conducted on water courses.

The EIA Regulations require EIA to be conducted for two categories of project, given in Schedules
1 and 2 of the Regulations. Schedule 1 projects always require EIA and Schedule 2 projects
require EIA if their potential environmental impacts are considered likely to be significant. The
selection criteria provided in schedule 3 helps to determine whether a schedule 2 development
needs EIA (Circular). The developer has three options when deciding whether or not to conduct
EIA:
• developer decides that a project requires EIA under the Regulations, or wishes to conduct one
anyway.
• developer is uncertain about whether EIA is required and requests a ‘screening opinion’ from
the Local Planning Authority (LPA).
• developer decides that EIA is not required and when the planning application is submitted,
the LPA must determine whether EIA is required, and if so, request it.

In the UK there is no requirement for the local planning authority to be consulted before the
environmental statement is submitted, nor is there a requirement for a formal scoping stage in
which the information to be included in the environmental statement is determined. However,
guidance documents stress the benefits of early consultation on the scope of the EIA and the
developer can ask the LPA for a ‘scoping opinion’, and if the LPA fails to provide one, then a
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Annex to Chapter 7 Page 67

scoping direction can be provided from the Minister.

Neither the EIA Directive nor the UK Regulations expressly require the developer to study
alternatives, but if alternatives are considered, they must be recorded in the environmental
statement, and developers are encouraged to consider strategic alternatives early in the
development process to enable them to be considered as feasible options.

The information that should be included in the environmental statement (ES) is split into two
sections in Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations. The first section outlines the information that may
be necessary for the assessment but is not mandatory, and the second section states the
minimum legal requirements. Schedule 4 identifies the environmental aspects that might be
significantly affected and indicates that consideration should be given to the likely significant
effects resulting from the use of natural resources, pollutant emissions, creation of nuisance and
elimination of waste. EIA should cover direct, indirect, secondary and cumulative effects, short,
medium and long term effects, permanent and temporary effects and positive and negative effects
(Circular 02/99). According to the EIA Regulations, a number of statutory consultees must be
involved in the EIA process, but unless the LPA has adopted a screening opinion there is no
requirement for consultation with these bodies before submission of the ES. There is also no
formal requirement for the public to be involved in the EIA process or even informed that it is
taking place until the ES has been completed, when it must be publicised and made available for
public inspection and comment.

The LPA must make a decision within sixteen weeks of receiving the planning application and ES.
A planning application cannot be dismissed as invalid because the ES is considered inadequate,
but the LPA can request more information, which must be supplied and publicised by the
developer. When the LPA makes its decision, the ES and any comments submitted by members
of the public or statutory consultees must be taken into consideration.

Neither the EIA Directive nor UK Regulations require monitoring of the actual effects of a
development by the developer or the planning authority, and in general, environmental
statements contain only limited undertakings to monitor environmental impacts, and monitoring
is rarely part of planning conditions. The fact that environmental statements are produced for the
planning decision and do not form the basis for monitoring or enforcement is considered a major
weakness of EIA. There is also no specific reference to the need for EIA to consider health
impacts, so environmental statements rarely contain a discussion of human health issues, despite
the fact that the environmental effects such as emissions to air, water and soil can have
significant health implications.

If there are plans to makes changes to an existing or approved development, EIA is only required
if the changes are likely to have significant environmental effects. It is necessary to consider the
proposal in the context of its use, for example small extensions to a runway may allow larger
aircraft to land which in turn will result in significant increases in emissions and noise, therefore
significant environmental impacts and the need for an EIA.

Schedule 1 of the regulations uses the term airport to mean an airport that complies with the
definition in the 1994 Chicago Convention and requires EIA for the construction of airports with a
basic runway length of 2,100m or more. Schedule 2 includes the construction of airfields not
included in Schedule 1 and extensions to a runway or if the area of works at an airport exceeds
1ha. In deciding whether a schedule 2 development actually requires EIA, it is necessary to think
about the characteristics of the development such as the size, cumulative impacts, natural
resource use, waste production, nuisance caused and risk of accidents. Consideration should also
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Annex to Chapter 7 Page 68

be given to the location including existing land use, natural resources in the area, absorption
capacity of the area especially if it is in a wetland, coastal zone, mountain/forest area, nature
reserves/parks, protected areas, areas where the environmental quality standards are already
exceeded, densely populated areas, historical, cultural or archaeologically significant landscapes,
and the characteristics of the potential impacts, such as the extent of the impact, transfrontier
nature, magnitude, complexity, probability of the impact, duration, frequency and reversibility of
the impact.

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Although the assessment of individual projects helps to identify and mitigate environmental
damage there are many drawbacks. For example it is generally limited to the direct impacts on a
small site and cannot consider cumulative effects of small projects that do not require EIA. It also
does not consider induced impacts such as occur when a project stimulates further development.
There are also difficulties in dealing with synergistic effects and global impacts. It also occurs
after strategic decisions have already been made and therefore only considers a limited range of
alternatives (23rd report). Environmental impact assessment for large transport infrastructure is
carried out routinely but has severe limitations, mainly related to the fact that it is linked to the
last step in the decision-making process, when it is often too late to consider more strategic
alternatives such as modal and route choices. As a result, there is growing consensus that SEA of
national/regional/local transport policies, plans and programmes is essential to ensure that
environmental considerations are taken into account at all levels of decision making, and ensure
that feasible alternatives are properly considered and that the public and environmental
authorities are fully involved in the decision making process. SEA is conducted earlier in the
decision-making process and encompasses all the projects of a certain type in a certain area.
Thus, it can ensure that alternatives are adequately assessed, cumulative impacts considered, the
public is fully consulted and decisions concerning individual projects are made in a proactive
rather than reactive manner.

Strategic environmental assessment is the extension of the EIA principles to policies, plans and
programmes, i.e. more strategic decisions. The EU Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
Directive has now come into force and member states have until 21st July 2004 to implement
this Directive into their own legislation. The SEA Directive does not require assessment of
policies, but does require a formal environmental assessment of plans and programmes with
significant environmental effects by the UK central, regional and local authorities. SEA will be
mandatory for all plans and programmes that:
• set the framework for development consents of individual project in Annex 1 and 2 of the EIA
Directive
• are in the fields of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, transport, waste, water management,
telecommunications, town and country planning or land use
• require assessment under the habitats Directive (92/93) in view of likely effects on Natura
2000 sites

For other plans and programmes SEA will only be required if they are likely to have significant
environmental effects. In the UK context, this means that development plans (structure plans,
local plans and unitary plans) and regional planning guidance would definitely be subject to SEA.

The SEA Directive is modelled closely on the EIA Directive. The assessment required is broad,
including secondary and cumulative effects, and that the analysis is available for public
consultation and inspection. This Directive does not apply to policies, and there is no requirement
for scoping or to establish indicators, although ideally it will be applied throughout the multiple
stages of plans and programme development. SEA is a central step in the achievement of
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Annex to Chapter 7 Page 69

sustainable development. SEA practice is mostly an expansion of SEA techniques and principles
to more strategic actions. The Directive requires the lead agency that is responsible for the plan
or programme to assess its impact on human beings, flora, fauna, soil, water, air, climate,
landscape, material assets and the cultural heritage. The SEA will also have to include a
discussion of the contents and objectives of the plan or programme, the environmental
characteristics of any area likely to be significantly affected by the plan or programme, the
existing environmental problems, relevant environmental protection objectives and how they were
considered, the significant environmental effects of the plan or programme, alternative methods
of achieving the objectives of the plan or programme that were considered, mitigation measures
and difficulties encountered in compiling the information. The environmental authorities, the
public and affected Member States will then be given the opportunity to comment on the SEA
and these comments will be taken into consideration before the plan or programme is adopted.

However, there are problems associated with SEA which can be technical or procedural in nature.
One problem is that many potential future developments spread over a large area can lead to
substantial analytical complexity. Information about existing and projected environmental
conditions and about the nature, scale and location of future development proposals is usually
very limited so the impacts of these developments cannot be predicted precisely. The
requirements for public participation, as well as the large number of alternatives also complicate
the process.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Annex to Chapter 7 Page 70

Abbreviations
ACARE Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe
ANMAC Aircraft Noise Monitoring Advisory Committee
APD air passenger duty
AQMA Air Quality Management Area
ATC air traffic control
ATM air traffic management
BATA British Air Transport Association
CAA Civil Aviation Authority
CAEP Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection
CBI Confederation of British Industry
CDA continuous descent approach
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
dB decibel
dB(A) A-weighted sound level measurement (to replicate response of the human ear)
DETR (former) Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
DfT Department for Transport
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
ECAC European Civil Aviation Conference
EEA European Economic Area
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
GDP gross domestic product
IATA International Air Transport Association
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation
ICCA/A International Coordinating Committee of Aviation Industry Associations
ICSA International Coalition for Sustainable Aviation
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Leq measure of noise indicating equivalent continuous noise level
Lden measure of noise for day and evening sound levels
Lmax measure of noise indicating the maximum sound level from a single noise event
LTO landing and takeoff
mppa million passengers per annum
MtC million tonnes of Carbon
NATS National Air Traffic Services Limited
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NPR noise preferential route
NTK noise and track keeping
ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
OEF Oxford Economic Forecasting
PM10 particulate matter with diameter smaller than 10 millionths of a metre
RCEP Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
VOCs volatile organic compounds
WHO World Health Organisation
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Annex to Chapter 7 Page 71

Acknowledgements
Primary Authors (in alphabetical order)
Liz Anastasi*, Dr Helen Dickinson*, Gary Kass^, Karen Smith*, Claudia Stein*

* these people were on temporary placements at POST during 2002. POST is grateful for their
assistance in preparing this report.
^ Gary Kass is Environment and Energy Adviser at POST, and can be contacted on 020 7219 2161;
[email protected]

Acknowledgements
The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and the authors would like to acknowledge the
following organisations for providing invaluable information and expert comment:

Organisation Name
AEA Technology Dr Brian Underwood
Airport Operators Association Andrew McCall
Aviation Environment Federation Tim Johnson, Jeff Gazzard
BAA plc Phil Dunn, Stephen Hardwick, Graham Earl, Rick
Norman
Boeing Herbert Lust
Cambridge University Dr Helen Rogers
Civil Aviation Authority Peter Havelock
CPRE Brendon Sewill
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Rupert Furness
Department for Transport Graham Pendlebury, Philip Grindrod, Roger Gardner,
Mike Crompton, Jeff Thompson, Roberta McWatt
Department of Transport and Regional Services, Australia David Southgate
Greener by Design Charles Miller
HACAN Clearskies John Stewart
Hounslow Borough Council Rob Gibson
Manchester Airport Jon Bottomley
Manchester Metropolitan University Prof Callum Thomas, Dr Paul Upham
National Society for Clean Air Tim Williamson, Mary Stevens
National Air Traffic Services plc Carole MacMahon
Newcastle Airport Graeme Mason
PA Consulting Liz Orme
Queen Mary, University of London Prof Stephen Stansfeld
Retired Head of Environment, British Airways Dr Hugh Somerville
RollsRoyce Dr Colin Beesley
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Anna Bradbury
SASIG, Local Authority aviation group Jim Bailey
Scottish Executive David Doxford
Society of British Aerospace Companies Dr Mike Steeden
Zurich Airport Emaunel Fleuti

Those signified in bold text were members of an advisory group set up for this project. POST is extremely
grateful for their continued input during this study. It must be noted however, that this report is that of
POST itself, and not that of the advisory group.
POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Annex to Chapter 7 Page 72

Members of the Board of the Parliamentary

Office of Science and Technology April
2003
Officers
Chairman
Dr Phyllis Starkey MP
Vice-Chairman
Lord Flowers FRS
Director
Professor David Cope

House of Lords
The Earl of Erroll
Lord Oxburgh, KBE, FRS
Professor the Lord Winston

House of Commons
Mr Richard Allan MP
Mr Michael Connarty MP
Mr Paul Flynn MP
Dr Ashok Kumar MP
Margaret Moran MP
Dr Andrew Murrison MP
Mr Ian Taylor, MBE, MP
Mr Richard Taylor MP
Dr Des Turner MP

Non-Parliamentary Members
Dr Frances R. Balkwill
Professor Sir Tom Blundell FRS
Sir David Davies, CBE, FREng, FRS
Professor Jim Norton, FIEE, FRSA

Ex-officio Members
For the Clerk of the House
Mr Robert Rogers
For the Librarian, House of Commons
Mr Christopher Barclay
 POST Report 195 April 2003 Aviation and the Environment Annex to Chapter 7 Page 73

List of recent publications

Title Date No
Medical self-test kits Mar 03 194
Food poisoning Jan 03 193
Nuclear fusion Jan 03 192
Access to Energy in Developing Countries Dec 02 191
Access to Sanitation in Developing Countries Dec 02 190
Public Dialogue in Science and Technology Nov 02 189
Air Quality in the UK Nov 02 188
Intelligent Transport Nov 02 187
Prospects for a Hydrogen Economy Oct 02 186
Copyright & the Internet Oct 02 185
Caesarean Sections Oct 02 184
Electronic Privacy Oct 02 183
Peer Review Sep 02 182
Broadband Internet Access July 02 181
The UK Biobank July 02 180
Nuclear terrorism July 02 179
Access to water in developing countries May 02 178
Floodforum.net - an Online Discussion Apr 02 177
Ratifying Kyoto Apr 02 176
CCTV Apr 02 175
Stem Cell Research Mar 02 174
Appraising Major Infrastructure Projects Feb 02 173
Labelling GM Foods Feb 02 172
vCJD in the Future Jan 02 171
e is for everything? O Dec 01 170
Managing Flooding Dec 01 169
MS Treatments & NICE Feb 02 168
Chemical Weapons Dec 01 167
Bio-terrorism Nov 01 166
Biometrics and Security Nov 01 165

Bullet points denote longer reports,

other titles are short briefings
How to order
POST produces two main types of publication: short briefing notes (known as POSTnotes, typically 4 or 8
pages) and longer reports. Both types are available free to Parliamentarians (phone POST on 020 7219
8377 or email [email protected]).
Members of the public can buy POST’s longer reports from the Parliamentary Bookshop, 12 Bridge Street,
London SW1A 2JX phone 020 7219 3890 fax 020 7219 3866. Please phone to check the price of the
report (usually around £12) and postage and packing costs. POSTnotes are available free to the public from
POST at the number above.
Subscribers to POST’s free mailing list recieve copies of all briefing notes and summaries of longer reports.
To join this list please contact POST. POSTnotes, recent longer reports and a complete list of POST’s
publications are available at www.parliament.uk/post
7 Millbank POST is an office of both Houses of Parliament, charged with
London SW1P 3JA providing independent and balanced analysis of public policy
Tel 020 7219 2840 issues that have a basis in science and technology.
Fax 020 7219 2849
© POST 2003
email [email protected]
www.parliament.uk/post £10 ISBN 1 897941 17 X