House of Commons
Environmental Audit Committee
The Airports
Commission Report
Follow–up: Carbon
Emissions, Air Quality
and Noise: Government
Response to the
Committee’s Seventh
Report
Seventh Special Report of Session
2016–17
Ordered by the House of Commons
to be printed 25 April 2017
HC 560
Published on 28 April 2017
by authority of the House of Commons
Environmental Audit Committee
The Environmental Audit Committee is appointed by the House of
Commons to consider to what extent the policies and programmes
of government departments and non-departmental public bodies
contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development;
to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them
by Her Majesty’s Ministers; and to report thereon to the House.
Current membership
Mary Creagh MP (Labour, Wakefield) (Chair)
Peter Aldous MP (Conservative, Waveney)
Caroline Ansell MP (Conservative, Eastbourne)
Dr Thérèse Coffey MP (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal)
Geraint Davies MP (Labour (Co-op), Swansea West)
Glyn Davies MP (Conservative, Montgomeryshire)
Luke Hall MP (Conservative, Thornbury and Yate)
Peter Heaton-Jones MP (Conservative, North Devon)
Mr Peter Lilley MP (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)
Caroline Lucas MP (Green Party, Brighton Pavilion)
Kerry McCarthy MP (Labour, Bristol East)
John Mc Nally MP (Scottish National Party, Falkirk)
Scott Mann MP (Conservative, North Cornwall)
Dr Mathew Offord MP (Conservative, Hendon)
Joan Ryan MP (Labour, Enfield North)
Mr Gavin Shuker MP (Labour (Co-op), Luton South)
Powers
The constitution and powers are set out in House of Commons Standing
Orders, principally in SO No 152A. These are available on the internet
via www.parliament.uk/.
Publication
Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at
www.parliament.uk/eacom and in print by Order of the House.
Evidence relating to this report is published on the
inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are David Slater (Clerk), Lauren
Boyer (Second Clerk), Tom Leveridge (Senior Committee Specialist), Tom
Glithero (Committee Specialist), Emily Purssell (Committee Researcher),
Ameet Chudasama (Senior Committee Assistant), Baris Tufekci
(Committee Assistant), and Shagufta Hailes (Media Officer)
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the
Environmental Audit Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A
0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5776; the
Committee’s email address is [email protected].
Seventh Special Report of Session 2016–17
3
Seventh Special Report
The Environmental Audit Committee published its Seventh Report of Session 2016–17,
The Airports Commission Report Follow-up: Carbon Emissions, Air Quality and Noise,
[HC 840] on 23 February 2017. The Government’s response was received on 21 April 2017
and is appended to this report.
Appendix: Government response
Introduction
The Government welcomes the work that the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) has
done on the subject of airport capacity since the Airports Commission (AC) published its
final report in July 2015.
In informing the House of Commons of the Government’s preference for the Heathrow
Northwest Runway scheme the Secretary of State for Transport was very clear that “we
must tackle air quality and noise, and meet our obligations on carbon both during and
after construction”.
The draft Airports National Policy Statement (NPS), laid before Parliament and published
for public consultation on 2 February 2017, sets out the requirements that an applicant for
a Northwest Runway scheme at Heathrow Airport and associated infrastructure would
need to meet in order to gain development consent. These include measures to limit the
impacts of noise, air quality and carbon emissions.
The Transport Committee has been appointed by the Liaison Committee to scrutinise the
draft NPS, and will publish its report by summer recess 2017. Once the public consultation
has closed, the Government will consider all the responses received, along with the report
from the Transport Committee. Only then would the Secretary of State lay a final NPS
before Parliament, which may be voted on by the House of Commons, after which it could
be designated by the Secretary of State.
Air Quality
1. The Government must publish such an assessment [of air quality impacts using
the revised air quality plan] alongside the final National Policy Statement, it must
work towards a scenario in which all road links affected by expansion have predicted
concentrations below the limit value. Whilst the health impact assessment is a step in
the right direction, the Government must carry out work to reduce the significant health
impacts identified, before construction of the third runway begins. (Paragraph 32)
Response: The Government continues to update its evidence base on airport capacity as
appropriate to ensure that any final NPS is based on the most up to date information.
The Government is determined to meet its air quality obligations and to do so in the
shortest time possible. We will publish the final UK Air Quality Plan by 31 July. The draft
4
Seventh Special Report of Session 2016–17
NPS stipulates that final development consent will only be granted if the Secretary of State
is satisfied that, with mitigation, the scheme would be compliant with legal air quality
requirements.
As far as health impacts are concerned, the draft NPS makes very clear that “in order to
be compliant with the Airports NPS, a further project level Health Impact Assessment is
required. The application should include and propose health mitigation, which seeks to
maximise the health benefits of the scheme and mitigate any negative health impacts”.1
2. We encourage the committee scrutinising the NPS to consider this report and its
recommendations, and urge the Government to clarify its position [on post-Brexit air
quality limits] in its response to this report. (Paragraph 33)
Response: The Government is aware of the desire for certainty around what exiting the
EU means for our environmental policy and legislative framework. That is why the Prime
Minister announced last year our plans for a Great Repeal Bill. The Bill will convert EU
law into UK law as it stands at the moment before we leave the EU. On 30 March 2017 the
Great Repeal Bill White Paper2 was published setting out the detail of our approach to the
Bill and how the domestic legal system will work once we have left the EU.
The UK has a long commitment to improving the environment even before it joined the
EU; for example the Clean Air Act was introduced in 1956. Our strong commitment to
improving air quality will continue after the UK leaves the EU.
3. The Government should work with Defra on an air quality alert system for people
who are especially vulnerable to the effects of short-term exposure to pollutants.
(Paragraph 34)
Response: Through the Government-funded website UK-Air3, Defra already makes
available a five-day forecast from the Met Office on predicted air pollution levels. This
allows members of the public, particularly those who are most likely to be affected by
such pollution, to take action. This information is also available on the Met Office website,
alongside the weather forecast.
UK-Air also provides the most up-to-date information on local air pollution levels using
data from the national network of air pollution monitors. Importantly, the website provides
Public Health England’s advice on practical actions and steps people can take to minimise
the impact of these events.
Defra issues daily tweets from the UK-Air Twitter account, which provide information
about current air pollution levels and accompanying health advice. These include details
of affected regions and links to regionalised maps. These are routinely retweeted by
Public Health England and are followed by journalists who use the information to inform
their reporting, as well as health charities and campaign groups who regularly retweet
information to vulnerable populations.
1
2
3
Draft NPS, paragraph 1.33
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-great-repeal-bill-white-paper
uk-air.defra.gov.uk
Seventh Special Report of Session 2016–17
5
During episodes of high air pollution Defra alerts a network of health charities, providing
full details of the nature of the episode, its geographical location and anticipated duration,
along with links to further information including specific health advice relevant to the
episode.
The Government will continue to ensure that members of the public have the information
and advice they need to take appropriate action to minimise their exposure to high levels
of pollution.
4. The Government must publish such an assessment [a comprehensive assessment
of the infrastructure requirements of an expanded Heathrow] and consult on it before
publishing a final National Policy Statement. (Paragraph 44)
Response: As part of the statutory planning process responsibility rests with the applicant
to provide a detailed Transport Assessment as part of any development consent application
and to set out its proposals to mitigate impacts on the surrounding transport network,
whether through transport infrastructure or other transport measures.
In the draft NPS the Government has proposed the outcomes it wishes to see, including
specific targets relating to public transport mode share and employee travel that the airport
would be required to meet. It would be up to the applicant to demonstrate in detail how
it would meet such outcomes. However, the work of the AC, and subsequent work, has
illustrated a number of improvements to public transport which could support this. Some
of these improvements, such as Crossrail, HS2 and improvements to the Great Western
and Piccadilly Lines are happening regardless of airport expansion.
Other schemes, such as the planned Western Rail Link to Heathrow, are in development
and could be in place before a new runway opens. This would provide a rail connection
to the west of the airport. Other proposed schemes such as Southern Rail Access
would provide direct access from the airport to the South West Trains network, with
connections towards Waterloo and Clapham Junction, and potentially towards Woking
and Basingstoke. Southern Rail Access is at an earlier stage of development and a range of
options are being considered which would provide a range of benefits to both airport and
non-airport users.
Details of any finalised proposals for the Northwest Runway scheme at Heathrow Airport
and necessary changes to the transport system will rightly be considered as part of the
statutory planning process.
5. There needs to be clarity over how this pledge [that there will be “no more cars on
the road” as a result of expansion] will be delivered and monitored, the consequences if
it is not met and the implications of that for local authorities’ responsibilities to deliver
air quality compliance. (Paragraph 45)
Response: The Government has set out its expectation in the draft NPS that “Heathrow
Airport should continue to strive to meet its public pledge to have landside airport-related
traffic no greater than today.” The Government has also proposed specific targets on
public transport mode share and employee travel. Heathrow Airport will need to set out,
and provide evidence, as part of any development consent application as to exactly how it
6
Seventh Special Report of Session 2016–17
would achieve these. It is the Government’s expectation that, subject to the outcome of the
NPS and planning processes, the mode share targets at paragraph 5.16 of the draft NPS
would become binding upon the airport.
Lastly, we note that the EAC referred in its report to a Government target for 60% of all new
cars to be Ultra Low Emissions Vehicles (ULEVs) by 2030. The EAC has since confirmed
that this was an error as the Government currently has no such target. The Government
is committed to almost all cars and vans being zero emission by 2050 and will publish an
updated strategy on support for the transition to zero emission road transport by March
2018.
Carbon
6. The business case for Heathrow expansion must be assessed against a cost/benefit
analysis which uses realistic carbon policy assumptions, in line with the Government’s
aviation strategy, and takes account of the resulting impacts on other airports and
other sectors of the economy. These must be the headline figures in future Government
publications, including the final National Policy Statement. (Paragraph 59)
Response: The Government has reviewed the AC’s work and believes that the carbon
scenarios and assumptions on carbon abatement measures used are realistic and that the
analysis takes into account impacts on other airports4. None of the AC’s carbon scenarios
involves placing additional pressure to reduce emissions on other sectors of the UK
economy except as a consequence of carbon price.
7. The Government claims that Heathrow expansion can be delivered within “the
UK’s climate change obligations”. The Government has not set out what it means
by “obligations”, let alone how it will meet them. It has not decided whether to
accept the Committee on Climate Change’s recommendation on limiting emissions
from international aviation. It has not decided whether to follow the CCC’s advice
on offsetting. The Airports Commission told us the appropriate body to make
recommendations on managing aviation emissions is the CCC. It would not be a
credible position for the Government to claim that it can deliver Heathrow expansion
within emissions limits whilst rejecting independent advice as to what those limits
should be and how they should be met. (Paragraph 60)
Response: We have been very clear, including in correspondence with the EAC, that we
have not ruled out any of the AC’s carbon policy scenarios. In January 2017, we wrote to
the Chair of the EAC, stating:
“[t]he Government has not taken a view on whether to accept the CCC’s planning
assumption. The Government remains open to considering all feasible measures to ensure
that the aviation sector contributes fairly to UK emissions reductions.”
The upcoming aviation strategy will consider measures to tackle the carbon impacts of
aviation.
8. The Government should reconfirm its intention to participate in this scheme
[ICAO agreement] from 2021, which is after the date when the Government intends
to have formally completed leaving the EU, urge other major emitters, including the
4
Airports Commission Strategic Fit: Forecasts, Chapter 6
Seventh Special Report of Session 2016–17
7
United States, to live up to their commitments to participate from the earliest possible
date, and work towards strengthening the agreement during its review periods.
(Paragraph 61)
Response: The Government agrees with this recommendation. We have stated our
intention to participate in the scheme from 2021 and we continue to encourage our
international partners to do the same. The UK is strongly in favour of further increasing
the ambition of the scheme as it progresses and will work with other States in ICAO to try
and achieve this during the review periods.
9. The Government’s aviation strategy should be integrated with the crossGovernment emissions reduction plan. It should set out costed policies to either
meet the Committee on Climate Change’s planning assumption or to make up the
shortfall from other sectors. This decision will have to take account of the limited
progress towards decarbonisation outside the energy sector and the likely additional
climate change impact of some non-CO2 emissions. Where the Government makes
assumptions that are more optimistic than the Committee on Climate Change’s advice
it should subject those assumptions to independent scrutiny from industry and the
CCC and, if necessary, revise its plans accordingly. This strategy should be available
well before the end of the scrutiny period for the draft National Policy Statement
and consultation on it should be completed before the National Policy Statement is
finalised. (Paragraph 63)
Response: The Government partially agrees with this recommendation. We are working
closely across Government on both our plan to reduce emissions through the 2020s and
an aviation strategy to replace the Aviation Policy Framework.
The issue of aviation and climate change is much broader than the development of an
airport. Aviation is inherently an international industry and climate change is an
international challenge. As agreed at the time of the Kyoto Agreement, it is only right that
aviation emissions are tackled via concerted international action. It is also right that we
take action domestically to reduce the carbon intensity of air travel. The AC considered
both international and UK sectoral frameworks for tackling aviation emissions and
concluded that any of its three shortlisted schemes for increased airport capacity could
be delivered consistently with the UK’s obligations. The Government agrees with the AC’s
conclusion and will continue to consider both international and domestic policy measures
to tackle the climate change impacts of aviation.
The Government will set out its strategic approach to aviation in a series of consultation
papers over the next two years including a paper on the environmental impacts of
aviation. This will be an ambitious programme of work and will take some time. We will
be consulting widely, both with the industry and with consumers throughout 2017 and
2018 – leading to publication of an Aviation Strategy White Paper in 2018.
The Department has also begun a programme of work to update our evidence on what
measures could be used to reduce UK aviation emissions and what the associated costs
would be to the UK and society more widely. This is due to be published in summer 2017
and will feed into the Department’s aviation strategy.
8
Seventh Special Report of Session 2016–17
Noise
10. The Government must carry out further work on respite which should form part of
the NPS process, alongside plans for a live timetable of respite to be published beginning
when the new runway is operational. We welcome the Government’s commitment to a
6.5 hour night flight ban. However as the Government’s case for expansion has relied
heavily on the Airports Commission’s work; it would appear inconsistent to reject its
key recommendation on the precise timing of a night flight ban. The Government must
consider this recommendation alongside consideration of the health aspects caused to
residents, in line with the requirements of EU Directive 598/2014. (Paragraph 72)
Response: The Government disagrees with this recommendation. It will be for the airport
to submit plans for a respite scheme, arrived at in consultation with local communities
and other interested parties, as part of its development consent application. Details such
as timings, duration and scheduling will need to be defined through consultation with
local communities and other relevant stakeholders.
The Government’s expected ban on scheduled night flights of six-and-a-half hours each
night at an expanded Heathrow is the same length of time as the ban recommended by the
AC and an hour and a half more than the current arrangement. Although at this stage the
Government is setting out its expectation of a ban of six-and-a-half hours, international
legislation requires consultation before any ban is introduced. The outcome of this process,
during which local communities and other interested parties will all get to have their say,
will determine the exact details, including the timings of any ban. We are not going to
pre-empt the outcome of this process.
Health impacts of exposure to aircraft noise from an expanded airport were assessed by
the AC and included in the Appraisal of Sustainability (AoS). The change in noise will
have to be further assessed by the applicant for development consent. Proposed changes
to UK airspace policy would also require impacts on health and quality of life as a result
of noise to be assessed to inform any future decisions on flight paths for a new runway.
11. The Government should publish a comparison between projected three- and
two-runway noise levels in 2030 as well as with noise levels now. The Government and
Heathrow should work towards a goal of less noise than a two runway Heathrow would
create in 2030. (Paragraph 86)
Response: This data was produced by the AC and published alongside its Final Report5.
The draft NPS requires the applicant to put forward plans for binding noise performance
targets which should be tailored to local priorities and therefore defined in consultation
with local communities. We would not want to pre-empt the outcome of this consultation.
12. The Government should work with the sector and public to set its priorities
[between carbon emissions reduction and noise reduction]. If the Government plans to
rely on future technical improvement to reduce noise impacts, then it must provide the
aviation industry with support by setting a clear strategic direction for the industry
and guarantee policy certainty for investment. (Paragraph 87)
Response: The Government accepts that there can be trade-offs for aircraft and engine
manufacturers between improved fuel consumption and noise reduction, but to make
5
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/airports-commission-final-report-noise
Seventh Special Report of Session 2016–17
9
their products commercially viable they have to deliver both. The Government’s existing
airspace policy makes clear that noise reduction is the priority at lower levels (below 4,000
feet) and that both noise and carbon should be balanced between 4,000–7,000 feet, with
noise no longer a priority above 7,000 feet. Reduced fuel consumption and the introduction
of low-carbon fuels will both help to deliver lower carbon emissions from aviation. The
Government intends to consider these strategic issues in more detail as part of its work to
develop a new aviation strategy.
13. The Government must create an Independent Aviation Noise Authority with an
independent chair, the ability to enforce its policy recommendations and the remit to
monitor and enforce Heathrow’s commitments to provide respite, including the live
timetable; its compliance with night flight scheduling; and the schedule and investment
timetable for rolling out the promised noise insulation. (Paragraph 105)
Response: The Government has carefully considered the AC’s recommendation to establish
an independent aviation noise authority and has agreed to set up a new Independent
Commission on Civil Aviation Noise. The Government is consulting on the functions and
governance of this body in the consultation on airspace policy.
14. The Government must ensure that the NPS process is informed by the most up-todate noise metrics, in light of the Attitudes to Noise Survey we expect the Government
to consider 54 dB LAeq 16hr as the onset of significant annoyance. (Paragraph 106)
Response: The Government agrees with this recommendation. The AC assessed noise
down to 54dB LAeq and this was also included in the AoS, which accompanies the
consultation on the draft NPS. The Government is now consulting on proposals to update
how noise is considered, as part of its airspace policy consultation, which reflect findings6
that the same percentage of people are now annoyed at 54 dB LAeq 16hr as were previously
annoyed at 57dB LAeq. As a result, we have proposed a lowest observed adverse effect
level (LOAEL) above which impacts on health and quality of life should be assessed for
the purposes of airspace changes. Our proposed LOAELs are 51 dB LAeq for daytime
noise and 45 dB Lnight for night time noise. We have also proposed several other metrics
to inform decisions and explain noise impacts on communities, including those which
reflect the frequency of aircraft that an individual will be exposed to.
6
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/survey-of-attitudes-to-aviation-noise