Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
widespread introduction of commercial jet airliners during the 1960s and 1970s led
to hundreds of civil law suits that almost brought operations to a standstill.
So, instead of being able to rely on the statutory nuisance powers that apply to
many other sectors, airport neighbours have been forced to look to the town plan-
ning system and other discretionary government powers to provide the necessary
environmental safeguards. While the ability of the planning system in the UK to
impose operational conditions or enter into legally binding conditions, with a view
to limiting noise, has had its successes, its application is limited in scope and fails to
deal with many day-to-day problems. Many airports benefit from either established
use rights or permitted development rights that do not always present local planning
authorities with an opportunity to impose controls; others have been granted plan-
ning consents that did not necessarily envisage the type or level of traffic currently
being handled and, consequently, fail to provide an effective set of controls. This
'hit-or-miss' approach to environmental regulation has, without any doubt, reinforced
local opposition to proposals for new airport development.
Where environmental problems at airports persist, the UK government prefers
to see them resolved at a local level. This is an obvious starting point, and discus-
sions between an operator and the local community can yield benefits, especially in
areas such as operational procedures and on-airport activity. But where problems
relate to more fundamental issues, such as the number of noise events, it is unlikely
that an airport will ever agree to voluntarily restrict or limit traffic. Such decisions
can only realistically be taken by regulators. In this respect, the UK government has
several discretionary environmental powers available to it, but these have rarely been
used. To date, only London's Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports have been
designated by the government despite the fact that there are other UK airports that
have either more night flights than Heathrow, or more people affected by aircraft
noise than Stansted.
4
Consequently, many residents feel that the existing controls at
UK airports are not effective and that the industry, to a large extent, remains self-
regulated at a time when other sectors are facing increasing environmental legislation.
Of course, the contribution of progressive technological improvements should
not be underplayed; but these benefits have often been offset by the introduction of
larger aircraft, more frequent movements, often at sensitive times of the day (or, to
be more accurate, at night), and growing community expectations. What are those
expectations? Ideally, most would like to see an end to the noise problem, but in Europe
there is a 'bottom-line' expectation that, at the very least, noise levels will not deteri-
orate following the completion of the Chapter 2 phase-out in April 2002. This
expectation is not unfounded: many European regulators, including the European
Commission, the European Civil Aviation Conference, and various European states,
have already stated that their wish is to prevent any increase in the number of people
affected by noise at airports after 2002. Furthermore, over 57 countries have signed
the World Health Organization's (WHO's) Charter on Transport, Environment and
Health. This incorporates elements of the WHO's guidelines for community noise
exposure, which state that day-time noise levels above 55 L
eq
decibel noise units (dB(A)),
and night-time levels in excess of 30 L
eq
dB(A) (interior noise level), should be avoided.
Given that most airports exceed these values every day, these guidelines could be
regarded as ambitious; but they also serve to remind us of the challenge we still face
if we are to reduce noise to levels that experts regard as acceptable. The charter is not
