Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
•
encourage the use of quieter aircraft at night; and
•
put in place arrangements that will bring about further improvements in the
night noise climate around the airport over time (DETR, 1999).
If it proves impossible to strike a balance between the need to protect local commu-
nities and the ability of integrators to continue operations, then the continuation
and growth of JIT systems that the integrators facilitate is under severe threat, which
could lengthen delivery times by as much as 100 per cent. Reduced night-time oper-
ations, an increased emphasis on the polluter paying and relocation of operations are
all unattractive options for integrated carriers; this makes it critically important for
the managements of integrators, airports and other supply-chain stakeholders to
come together more effectively with the local community through joint dialogue.
This, in turn, raises questions about the ways in which formal consultation and par-
ticipation arrangements function, as well as issues regarding their effectiveness. It is
clear that in helping to strike a balance between different and irreconcilable interests,
it is necessary to recognize that no one group of interests will be entirely satisfied
with the decisions taken (DETR, 1999) - in which case some mechanism must be
found whereby benefits accruing to one party (eg airlines) can compensate for the
costs imposed on others (eg local communities) (Goodwin, 1993).
While the relative significance of the four visions described here will depend
upon the particular context, it is clear that the cost in terms of time and money will
be borne by the supply chain to an ever-increasing extent in order to reflect the
social and environmental implications for communities affected by the operation of
aircraft at night. Currently, the problem is seen narrowly as an airline-noise nuisance
issue. Further research is needed to assess the precise economic impact of the supply
chain continuing to deliver in its current form, and the opportunity cost of restrict-
ing future growth, particularly for sectors such as e-commerce.
Once these are known, then government and planners can take a more informed
view about the balance between the value of night operations and their environmen-
tal and social externalities. Without the economic side of the argument, politicians
may be swayed by the rising complaints of residents and the true value of the inte-
grators' operations may be missed, perhaps with economic consequences to the very
people who are complaining!
Prior to permitting development, planners need to issue clear guidance to inte-
grators regarding where it is acceptable to operate and the limits, in terms of night
noise, in the form of planning conditions and obligations that may be attached to
the granting of planning permission. Authorities should not, as in the East Midlands
and Brussels cases, gain the social, economic and political advantages of attracting
additional employment and then try to restrict the modus operandi of a company with
regulations that effectively bring its operations to a halt.
If the achievement of reduced delivery times is to continue, then much will depend
upon the ability of the integrators to forge partnerships with local communities to
implement measures that will meet the ground rules of corporate responsibility in the
21st century, particularly in the UK and Europe. Meeting shareholder expectations
is still crucial, but is now only one part of the 'triple bottom line', where financial pro-
bity is now conjoined with the need to meet social and environmental obligations.
