Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The East Midlands case shows that partnership with its local community regard-
ing night-time operations is now being seriously pursued, and it is likely that this
model may be applied more widely. It is better for the operators to develop a dia-
logue and to engage with their local communities rather than face confrontation,
which may result in draconian measures to appease local political sensitivities. Direct
interaction between integrators and their communities could lead to a better under-
standing of the problems facing both, and to local solutions being found to reduce
nuisance while not significantly interfering with operations. In this context, further
research could explore how, for example, noise monitoring and mapping techniques
could be developed in partnership with the affected community to try and uncover
ways of facilitating the expansion of supply-chain operations in a more socially respon-
sible and environmentally acceptable manner.
In turn, the local community may benefit from being more clearly informed of
the value of integrator activities in terms of employment and the wider economic
repercussions of a slower supply chain. That said, a core problem is that the local com-
munity suffers the noise, while at present the benefits do not accrue to them exclu-
sively even if they do contribute on a national scale.
C
ONCLUSIONS
It is clear beyond doubt that if night-time air-freight operations are to continue at
airports with nearby residential populations, then 'business as usual' is simply not an
option for future growth. The implication is that, just as the actual operational
capacity of an airport is always less than its design capacity, mitigating the effects of
night-time noise nuisance will constrain operational capacity further. In the UK,
there are administrative mechanisms whereby any airport can, in principle, be desig-
nated under section 80 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 for the purposes of section 78
of the act: that is, 'for the purpose of avoiding, limiting or mitigating the effect of
noise and vibration' connected with aircraft taking off or landing. This designation
process results in the present noise curfews in place at the three London airports
and, with it, the application of the quota count system. This is the primary weapon
that the government currently has in its armoury against aircraft noise - but it is a
weapon that it chooses to use sparingly and as a last resort. If airports and integrators
wish to avoid the prospect of its application to their airports and their operations,
then they must act jointly to resolve locally what is a local issue.
Although central government has the policy responsibility for aviation, its pol-
icy instruments are relatively blunt and unyielding in the context of intervening in
local circumstances. However, government policy does provide broad guidance on
what it envisages as appropriate policy objectives in such situations; these objectives
are to:
•
strike a balance between the need to protect local communities from excessive
aircraft noise levels at night and to provide for air services to operate at night
where they are of benefit to the local, regional and national economy;
•
ensure that the competitive factors affecting UK airports and airlines and the
wider employment and economic implications are taken into account;
