Consultation outcome

Draft guidance to the regulator on environmental objectives under the Space Industry Act 2018: final outcome

Updated 25 June 2021

Executive summary

In February 2021, the government ran a 6-week consultation on the draft environmental objectives for the implementation of the Space Industry Act 2018 (the act) and associated guidance. The guidance sets out how the government expects the spaceflight regulator to interpret these environmental objectives when exercising its functions under the act.

The feedback received has been used to ensure that the environmental objectives are clear and enable the development of an environmentally responsible space sector in the UK, and that the associated guidance is a useful tool for the regulator and industry.

We asked 9 questions about our proposed approach in the consultation. In total there were 17 responses to the consultation, including from the Scottish Government, prospective launch operators and spaceports, noise consultants and trade organisations, other industry and professional bodies, a school and one member of the public.

The government appreciates the engagement from across government and industry, both in advance of the consultation, which assisted in the development of the environmental objectives and associated guidance and in the detailed responses to the consultations.

The final guidance for the spaceflight regulator was released with this outcome.

Environmental objectives

The feedback received largely supported the requirement for the environmental objectives, and the guidance that underpins it, to enable an environmentally responsible space sector in the UK. In particular, it was recognised that the space sector should seek to uphold wider government’s environmental objectives while supporting shared ambitions to grow the UK’s share of the global space market to 10% by 2030.

Respondents were also broadly supportive of the 4 objectives proposed by government and provided constructive suggestions on how the guidance could be improved to aid the interpretation of the objectives by the regulator.

Only one respondent questioned the requirement to have environmental objectives and felt that these should have been considered when government invested in the Spaceflight Programme.

Government response

In response to the consultation, the government will not be making any changes to the scope or wording of the four environmental objectives.

Guidance to the regulator on the environmental objectives

General comments on the environmental objectives guidance

A number of respondents considered that the guidance should be made clearer on the assessment criteria the regulator will use when making its assessment of compliance with the environmental objectives and any assessment of environmental effects submitted as part of a launch operator and spaceport licence application.

Respondents also provided a number of constructive suggestions to clarify what matters are for the devolved administrations, such as the regulation of ground-based facilities, environmental and planning policies. Other suggestions were around keeping the guidance current to evolving standards and legislation.

Government response

While the government understands the desire for clarity, it would not be appropriate for the government to set the assessment criteria or stipulate how the regulator makes its own assessment. Section 2(2)(e) of the act requires only that the government set environmental objectives for the regulator to take account of. The associated guidance provides advice on the implementation of these objectives, but in order to ensure the independence of the regulator, they are tasked with developing their own methods for assessing compliance with the objectives.

While ‘space’ is a reserved matter, we have clarified that planning and environmental policy is a devolved matter, with particular reference to the national planning policies and frameworks, the 25 Year Environment Plan and the Environment Bill 2020.

The guidance will be periodically reviewed to ensure that it remains current to evolving standards, legislation and policies. But we have made clear that the regulator should take into account any relevant statutes in force.

Guidance on the climate change objective

Concerns were raised that the guidance suggested spaceflight activities themselves would have to be net zero in terms of carbon emissions by 2030. This was identified as particularly challenging for the sector.

Government response

It is not the government’s intent that this sector should be net zero. We have, therefore, amended the guidance to clarify that there is no expectation that spaceflight activities themselves should be net zero, but rather that the activities should not undermine the legally binding commitments that the UK government and devolved administrations have made with regards to achieving net zero.

We have made other minor changes to the guidance on climate change, to provide greater clarity on how the regulator should take account of the emissions contributing to climate change from the spaceflight activities so that they don’t undermine the carbon budgets set for the UK and the devolved administrations.

Guidance on the air quality objective

One respondent suggested that for air quality assessments the regulator should screen for the impacts of short-term releases by means of a puff modelling tool, rather than following only the approach taken by the Environment Agency, as suggested in the guidance, as this latter approach is more suited to continuous emissions.

Government response

We have removed the reference to the Environment Agency screening method for air quality assessments. Although it would be appropriate to use this method for more continuous emissions such as from ground-based operations, it may not be the best method for screening non-continuous or very short releases (such as from launch). It will be the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate the most appropriate method of screening air quality emissions relevant to the nature of the activity.

Guidance on the noise objective

A couple of respondents commented on the objective related to noise, how night-time launches should be considered and asked that the guidance include reference to noise exposure on wildlife and livestock, and consideration of the prevailing wind direction and favourable launch conditions.

Government response

We have made the guidance clearer that noise exposure on wildlife and livestock should be considered alongside human noise exposure.

We recognise that night-time launches may be attractive from an airspace (less impact on and requirements to re-route air traffic) and a meteorological standpoint. However, night-time launch may have adverse effects on people and wildlife. We have, therefore, proposed in the guidance specific methods for operators to estimate the likelihood of awakenings from night-time launches.

The regulator will take the outcomes of this assessment into consideration during the determination of an AEE.

The guidance on the noise objective now also reflects that the impact of favourable launch weather conditions should be taken into account, in addition to the predominant meteorological conditions, as favourable launch weather conditions may be more representative of weather at time of launch.

Guidance on the marine environment objective

Some respondents sought clarity on how the marine environment and the coastal environment are defined. Some respondents also considered that the regulator should ensure the potential cumulative effects of jettisoned objects in the marine environment from multiple launches, over the lifetime of the licence, will need to be accounted for.

Government response

The guidance on the marine environment makes clear that where spaceports are located on the coast, the assessment of impacts should cover impacts on the shoreline, estuaries and internal waters as, well as the sea. In addition, the guidance on jettisoned objects in the marine environment now reflects that the regulator will need to ensure that the cumulative effects of jettisoned objects from multiple launches over the lifetime of a licence is accounted for.

Next steps following consultation

The government is grateful to all those who responded to the consultation. As a result of the feedback received, some amendments have been made to the associated guidance. No changes have been made to the objectives themselves.

The updated guidance material will be published alongside this document, which details the government’s response to the feedback received during the consultation on the environmental objectives.

The government will undertake periodic reviews of the environmental objectives and associated guidance to ensure that it remains current and reflects the latest position on each of the topics included in the objectives, referencing the latest policies and strategies. The guidance itself does not include specific prescriptive metrics; this is to ensure that the regulator has enough flexibility to meet the requirements if statutory limits and environmental standards change.

Detailed summary of responses and the government response

Background

On 5 March 2021, the government published its response to the consultation on the operability and effectiveness of the draft Space Industry Regulations 2021, and associated guidance and supporting documents, following consultation, which opened in July 2020.

The consultation included the draft regulations appointing the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as the independent spaceflight regulator and guidance for the requirement in section 11 of the act for launch operator and spaceport licence applicants to conduct and submit an assessment of environmental effects (AEE) of their proposed activities.

The government consulted on the draft environmental objectives and associated guidance for the spaceflight regulator from 10 February to 24 March 2021. To facilitate the consideration of these proposals, pre-consultation engagement was carried out with key stakeholders.

A plenary event was held with stakeholders on 16 October 2020. In addition, officials sought input on the draft guidance and objectives from government and non-governmental organisations and the devolved administrations.

The environmental objectives

The government sought views on the suitability and appropriateness of the following environmental objectives for the UK space sector:

• minimise emissions contributing to climate change resulting from spaceflight activities (comprising the UK’s contribution to global emissions through spaceflight activities and considering emissions from the full journey even once it has left UK airspace/boundaries)
• protect human health and the environment from the impacts of emissions on local air quality arising from spaceflight activities
• protect people and wildlife from the impacts of noise from spaceflight activities (the impacts on domesticated animals and livestock should also be considered)
• protect the marine environment from the impacts of spaceflight activities

Guidance to the regulator on the environmental objectives

The government also sought views on the associated guidance on how the government expects the spaceflight regulator to interpret these environmental objectives when exercising its functions under the act.

The guidance explains to the regulator, and the spaceflight community, the government’s environmental objectives for the spaceflight sector, how these fit with government’s overarching environmental policies and how the regulator should interpret these objectives, including when assessing launch operator and spaceport licence applications.

Overview of respondents

A total of 17 responses were received, 16 of which were from organisations and one from an individual, as shown in the following table.

Response category	Responses received
Launch operator	2
Individual	1
Range control service provider	1
Spaceport operator	1
Academic	1
Other type of business or organisation	8
Users of launch or satellite services	2
Trade body	1

Approach to analysis of responses

All responses to the consultation were recorded, anonymised and analysed. As well as providing a detailed written response to each of the questions, the government has drawn out the common themes that emerged from these responses to highlight those views expressed most frequently.

The government is grateful for the responses received, and values all the evidence provided by respondents and the views expressed. It welcomes the variety of respondents, including the insightful feedback provided by schoolchildren. The government is also grateful for the engagement provided by the devolved administrations during the development of the environmental objectives.

Overview of responses

There were some common themes raised by respondents during the consultation on the environmental objectives. These are summarised to provide an overview of the types of feedback received.

Several respondents queried the lack of transparency regarding the assessment criteria and standards that would be applied by the regulator when assessing an AEE. Respondents were concerned that without clear benchmarks for how the regulator will assess the AEE and ensure the environmental objectives have been met, prospective licence applicants will not know the outcomes they have to achieve.

A number of respondents also highlighted that without a transparent and consistent process for the assessment of the AEE and compliance with the objectives, the regulator would be open to challenge.

This point was raised again by respondents who sought clarity on the criteria the regulator would use to refuse a licence application or impose licence conditions and mitigation measures.

Government response

The purpose of the guidance is to set out the environmental objectives and their wider context, rather than for government to impose a detailed assessment framework the regulator must implement. This provides the regulator with the flexibility necessary to develop its own assessment methods to meet the requirements set by government.

The AEE guidance provides further clarity on mitigations and how those should be addressed as part of an assessment. The regulator will consider each licence application and AEE on its own merits before deciding whether licence conditions or further mitigations are required.

Consultation feedback

Respondents questioned whether it is practical or realistic to flow high-level UK strategic objectives down directly to the commercial spaceflight programme through licensing. These respondents also questioned whether these broader strategic objectives were considered when the government decided to invest in developing the spaceflight sector.

Government response

The government has framed the environmental objectives in the context of the UK’s wider sustainable development and environmental aims and objectives, to ensure that the regulator will account for these when carrying out its duties under the act. The government’s investments aimed at developing the commercial spaceflight sector through grants include provisions which require the recipients to comply with all the relevant legislation and regulation applicable to their activities, including the government’s environmental policy and objectives.

Consultation feedback

A common theme in the responses received was the issue of duplicating effort. Some respondents suggested that if they had met the requirements set out in the objective through, for example, the environmental impact assessment submitted as part of the spaceport planning proposal, they should not have to carry out an additional assessment. They also queried whether an approval under another regime, such as the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment or EIA) Regulations 2017, and any associated planning conditions set, would be sufficient to confirm the environmental viability of a spaceport location.

Government response

The Space Industry Act 2018 (section 11(4)) and the guidance on AEEs both clearly state that where environmental assessments have previously been carried out in compliance with other statutory requirement, such as an EIA, these can be submitted as part of an AEE as long as there has been no material change since the assessment was made.

The environmental objectives are intended to provide guidance to the regulator on how to consider certain topics within an environmental assessment, rather than to stipulate the source of that assessment.

Consultation feedback

Some respondents also asked the government to provide greater clarity on how the regulator would distinguish between the responsibilities of the launch operator and spaceport licensees, to ensure that they were not duplicating efforts.

Government response

The AEE guidance makes it clear that any application (spaceport or launch operator) should consider any environmental effects arising from the proposals wherever those effects might occur.

For spaceport licence applicants, the AEE must identify the likely environmental effects of the launches that the spaceport intends to facilitate. This will help to ensure the spaceport can support these launches in an environmentally viable manner. The spaceport applicant should therefore consider the same environmental topics and environmental zones of influence as a launch operator licence because they are both assessing the effects of launch.

The detail provided by each applicant is, however, likely to be different because the details of the launch operators may not be known when a spaceport licence application is made, or vice versa. Further clarity on this is provided in the AEE guidance which specifically addresses the requirements for each licence type.

Consultation feedback

Concerns were also raised about whether the socio-economic benefits of the proposals would outweigh the environmental objectives and questioned whether the regulator would therefore opt to be less rigorous in interpreting the environmental objectives in favour of economic arguments.

Government response

While it is true that the regulator will have to balance the adequate protection of the environment with the socioeconomic benefits that will be derived from the UK commercial spaceflight industry, first and foremost, applicants will have to demonstrate in their AEE that their proposed activities will have no significant adverse environmental effects.

Where significant effects are expected, applicants will have to identify how they will avoid, mitigate or offset the risk and their potential effects.

The regulator will consider each application on its merits to ensure it is compliant with the government’s environmental objectives and the requirements set out in the act and AEE guidance.

Responses to individual questions

Respondents were asked a series of questions to gauge the appropriateness of the draft environmental objectives and to provide them with an opportunity to suggest additional objectives or amendments to the guidance provided to the regulator.

Appropriateness of the objectives and guidance material

Consultation feedback

Question 1: Overall, are the environmental impacts of spaceflight activities for which we are setting objectives, and the associated guidance, appropriate?

Many respondents welcomed the environmental objectives proposed by the government for the regulator to take into account.

It was noted that if the UK becomes Europe’s leading space nation, by providing an end-to-end solution for small satellites, this will enable the expansion and enhancement of earth observation and environmental data. This will aid in providing a meaningful contribution to efforts to tackle climate change and enhance green recovery.

However, it was also recognised that spaceflight activities may have adverse effects on the environment and that adequate measures should be in place to protect the environment.

One respondent proposed that there be a clear focus on reducing pollution in the troposphere, by limiting emissions from kerosene fuels and conventional rocket engines, notably black carbon and alumina.

Government response

This point is addressed in the environmental objectives guidance. The government has been clear that the regulator should encourage the UK spaceflight sector to adopt cleaner fuels and technologies.

Consultation feedback

Another respondent raised concerns about whether the regulator would have the required environmental expertise to carry out the required technical assessments.

Government response

The regulator has considered the resourcing related to each of its functions regarding spaceflight activities and will be ready to receive and consider AEEs as part of spaceport and launch operator licence applications, once the regulations are in force.

Consultation feedback

One respondent pointed out that as the regulation of space is a reserved matter for the UK parliament and government, it reiterated that the regulation of any earth-based facilities will include matters within devolved competence. It was also suggested that the guidance should be made clearer on where planning and environmental policy are a devolved matter.

Government response

This is acknowledged and the guidance has been amended to reflect this where appropriate.

Consultation feedback

One respondent also suggested that consideration should be given to any forthcoming duties and environmental principles in the UK Environment Bill 2020 and the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021.

Government response

The guidance has been amended to ensure the regulator takes into account any relevant legislation, policies and guidance. As stated in the Next steps following consultation, the guidance will periodically be reviewed to ensure that it remains current to evolving standards, legislation and policies.

Consultation feedback

One respondent asked that the regulator considers including an objective related to preserving the night sky for ground-based astronomy, particularly due to the impacts of mega-constellations.

Government response

The government will not be including this area as an objective, because it is relevant only to orbital licensees rather than spaceport and launch operators who require an AEE. However, the government recognises the importance of this issue and is currently considering this alongside other orbital policy areas.

Consultation feedback

There was a suggestion from one respondent to consider including guidance on the ionospheric impacts which can arise from spaceflight activities.

Government response

While the government recognises the risks highlighted by the respondent, this issue is related only to launch vehicles, whereas the environmental objectives should be applicable to both launch operators and spaceport operators. Therefore, we do not propose setting a specific objective on ionospheric impacts.

Consultation feedback

Many respondents to this question raised points which were then reiterated in subsequent feedback on the specific objective questions. These responses are therefore dealt with under the appropriate objective blow rather than repeated here.

How we propose that the regulator will interpret the objective on climate change

Consultation feedback

Due to the similarity of the responses received for questions 2 and 3, the government will respond to these questions in unison.

Question 2: Is it clear from the guidance how the regulator should interpret the government’s objective on minimising emissions contributing to climate change?

Question 3: Do you have any comments on the specific guidance provided to the regulator on the objective related to minimising emissions contributing to climate change? Please provide details.

One respondent argued that the AEE should take account of indirect effects to airspace and civil and military airspace users as a result of spaceflight launch activities.

The respondent also noted that there is currently no guidance for spaceflight operators to work with air traffic controllers or airspace users to identify an optimal time and location for spaceflight activities, so as to minimise the impact on airspace efficiency, network traffic flows and increased indirect carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from civil and military traffic having to divert around significant danger areas.

Government response

The environmental objectives guidance already highlights that aviation is likely to be impacted by launch activities and that the regulator will need to ensure that impacts such as increased pollutant emissions produced by airspace disruption are taken into account.

In addition, indirect effects from proposed activities are required to be assessed as part of the AEE and are addressed in the AEE guidance. The coordination of air traffic is beyond the scope of these objectives to consider. These processes are managed separately through the CAA in its capacity as the regulator for the aviation sector.

Consultation feedback

One respondent found the guidance unclear on the question of how the regulator would consider mitigations.

Government response

While the guidance requires the regulator to consider whether or not mitigations have been considered with regards to the climate change objective, or indeed, any of the objectives or environmental topics considered as part of an AEE, the regulator will use a common-sense approach.

This means that where no mitigations are deemed necessary by the applicant, and clear reasoning has been provided about why this conclusion was reached, the regulator will take this into account.

Consultation feedback

One respondent commented that spaceport operators would not be able to control the propellants used by launch operators unless they were included in, for example, the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, as this would encourage the use of cleaner propellants. There was also concern that spaceport licence applicants would be responsible for assessing the environmental effects of the activities of launch operators more widely.

Government response

The government does not expect spaceport licensees to dictate the propellants used by launch operators, but strongly encourages the use of cleaner fuels and technologies. With regards to the wider question of spaceport licence applicants being responsible for the activities of launch operators, this is beyond the scope of the environmental objectives and is discussed in the AEE guidance.

In summary, the AEE guidance states that it is conventional practice for environmental assessments to account for all of the activities intended to take place from the proposed site; this includes spaceport applicants considering the effects of launch. Where the launch operator is not known at the time of application for a licence, the spaceport licence applicant can use best estimates based on the types of launches it intends to facilitate, and structure its AEE around that.

Consultation feedback

Some respondents also asked for further clarity on whether spaceflight would have to be net zero or not.

Government response

This has already been addressed in the environmental objectives guidance which states that spaceflight activities should not undermine the legally binding commitments the UK and devolved administrations have in relation to net zero. However, the guidance also states that the spaceflight activities do not have to be net zero themselves.

Consultation feedback

It should be noted that although one respondent queried whether the regulator would withhold a licence if there were risks to the UK meeting its legally binding net zero targets, the regulator will consider the entirety of the AEE and the licence application before making a determination on whether to grant a licence or not.

One respondent suggested that the regulator should consider the impacts over the lifetime of the licence and assess the cumulative effects of multiple launches.

Government response

The government agrees with this point and has already addressed this in the guidance on the objectives and in the guidance regarding AEEs. The assessment of the environmental effects of spaceflight activities should be assessed cumulatively by the applicant; the regulator will then consider the duration of the proposed licence.

Consultation feedback

One respondent suggested that greenhouse gas and ozone monitoring sites will be in the same remote locations. However, location of monitoring sites is beyond the scope of these objectives and guidance.

Government response

In response to the feedback received from the consultation on the objectives, we have made some minor changes to the guidance relating to the climate change objective. This includes clarity on how the regulator should take account of the emissions contributing to climate change from the spaceflight activities so that they don’t undermine the carbon budgets set for the UK.

How we propose that the regulator will interpret the objective on air quality

Consultation feedback

Due to the similarity of the responses received for questions 4 and 5, the government will respond to these questions in unison.

Question 4: Is it clear from the guidance how the regulator should interpret the government’s objective on air quality?

Question 5: Do you have any comments on the specific guidance provided to the regulator on the objective related to air quality? Please provide details.

Consultation feedback

One respondent asked that government provide examples of how standards would be applied in relation to the air quality objective.

Government response

The guidance already provides examples of best practice methods that the regulator should follow. This does not preclude the regulator following other best practice methods, such as those issued by the Institute of Air Quality Management.

The government expects the regulator to assess the emissions from spaceflight activities against the relevant air quality limit or environmental standard appropriate to the type of activity taking place, for example, launch vehicle emissions (very short emission release) versus generators and traffic movements on and around the site (longer emission release).

Consultation feedback

Respondents to the consultation asked that the regulator take a pragmatic approach to assessing the environmental effects of spaceflight, allowing industry to mature and the regulator to build up its knowledge.

One respondent commented that while the Cleaner Air for Scotland strategy sets clear performance indicators, the equivalent Clean Air Strategy for England and Clean Air Plan for Wales do not. The respondent asked for clarity in the guidance relating to air quality matters in these areas.

Government response

The guidance draws upon existing national environmental policies and strategies to provide context about why the objective is required, but also to ensure coherence with wider government policies. The guidance then sets out what the regulator will need to consider in relation to each objective.

Consultation feedback

One respondent asked that government require the regulator to place mandatory reporting requirements on spaceport operators for air quality, light and noise pollution.

Government response

The AEE guidance states that the outcomes of the AEE will guide what appropriate licence conditions, including around monitoring and reporting, the regulator proposes for each licensee.

While this could include noise or air pollutant emissions, the government will not stipulate any mandatory reporting requirements the regulator is required to place on licensees.

Consultation feedback

Another respondent suggested that for air quality assessments the regulator should screen for the impacts of very short-term launch releases by means of a puff modelling tool, rather than following only the approach taken by the Environment Agency, as suggested in the guidance, as this latter approach is more suited to continuous emissions.

Government response

The government has considered this point and amended the guidance to remove references to the screening method used by the Environment Agency. It will be the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate the most appropriate method of screening air emissions relevant to the nature of the activity.

The government has made no further changes to the guidance related to local air quality.

How we propose that the regulator will interpret the objective on noise impacts

Due to the similarity of the responses received for questions 6 and 7, the government will respond to these questions in unison.

Consultation feedback

Question 6: Is it clear from the guidance how the regulator should interpret the government’s objective on noise?

Question 7: Do you have any comments on the specific guidance provided to the regulator on the objective related to noise? Please provide details.

Consultation feedback

Some respondents pointed out the positive outcomes which might be expected from addressing noise as an environmental objective. One respondent also pointed out that part of the spectator experience of a launch would be the sound and the excitement this generated.

Government response

By setting this objective, the regulator and industry will be able to develop best practice approaches and work to set appropriate standards for spaceflight activities to address gaps, such as the lack of standards for the noise generated by sonic booms. Increased monitoring will also contribute greatly to our understanding of the impacts of noise on, for example, breeding and roosting seasons.

Consultation feedback

Some respondents raised concerns about the absence of assessment criteria on how the regulator will assess noise topics within the AEE and regarding equivalent assessments such as the EIA.

One respondent also highlighted that measurements of the noise associated with a launch would only be available after the launch has taken place. The respondent queried how applicants should report on noise when the results won’t be known at application stage.

Government response

The government has been clear in both the guidance on the environmental objectives and the guidance on the preparation of an AEE, that assessments should be carried out using best practice and best available data based on expected noise levels from the proposed launch vehicle.

Consultation feedback

Consultation responses suggested the use of a wide range of noise metrics to address the specific characteristics of rocket noise. Some suggested the use of long-term average LAeq T, widely used for most other environmental noise assessments.

Others suggested that the low-frequency content of rocket noise needs to be addressed using specific metrics.

Responses also indicated that noise exposure on wildlife and livestock should be considered alongside human noise exposure.

Government response

We have made the guidance clearer that noise exposure on wildlife and livestock should be considered alongside human noise exposure.

Where spaceflight is facilitated through the use of carrier aircraft, the government supports the use of standard LAeq T noise indicators, for example, LAeq,16h and LAeq,8h. However, where rocket launches are infrequent (monthly, for example), the use of LAeq T noise metrics would not be supported.

Regarding low-frequency aspects of rocket launch noise, the government considers this is adequately addressed through the use of unweighted, or z-weighted, LZSmax information, as already proposed in the associated guidance document.

For very infrequent rocket launches, the primary concern is the protection of the public from high noise levels. There is little scientific research on attitudes or annoyance to infrequent rocket noise. The government has, however, recommended that a broader range of estimated LASmax noise levels, below 110 dB LASmax, should be reported by launch operators to facilitate launch stakeholder engagement and in due course, inform research on attitudes to rocket launch noise.

The government also recognises that while night-time launches may be attractive from an airspace and meteorological standpoint, these may, as raised by one respondent, have adverse effects on people and wildlife. The draft guidance has therefore been updated to propose specific methods for operators to estimate the likelihood of awakenings from night-time launches. The regulator will take the outcomes of this assessment into consideration during the determination of an AEE.

Finally, the guidance on the noise objective has also been updated to reflect a response that suggested the impact of the favourable launch weather conditions should also be taken into account in addition to the predominant meteorological conditions, as these could be more representative.

How we propose that the regulator will interpret objectives on the marine environment

Due to the similarity of the responses received for questions 8 and 9, the government will respond to these questions in unison.

Consultation feedback

Question 8: Is it clear from the guidance how the regulator should interpret the government’s objective on the marine environment?

Question 9: Do you have any comments on the specific guidance provided to the regulator on the objective related to the marine environment? Please provide details.

Consultation feedback

One respondent was concerned about whether the regulator could reasonably expect applicants to consider the trajectory of each launch to be carried out and the potential drop-zones of each, as this would cover too large an area.

There was also concern about how the marine environment and the coastal environment are defined.

Another respondent was concerned about the cost associated with the routine retrieval of jettisoned objects from drop-zones.

One respondent also asked for clarification on whether the marine assessment should consider the effects of launch failure.

Government response

The guidance on the environmental objectives should be read alongside the guidance on the form and preparation of an AEE. As set out in the AEE guidance, the impacts of spaceflight activities should be based on the Rochdale Envelope approach, which uses a reasonable worst-case scenario to capture the potential maximum impacts of the proposed activities, where the final design parameters are not known.

The government expects the regulator to ensure that in the AEE, the applicant has set out how potential drop-zones will directly interact with the marine environment and how these effects will be mitigated.

However, applicants will not be required in the AEE to consider the flight path of every potential trajectory for every proposed mission. This is set out in the AEE guidance.

It is also expected that applicants, when describing the environmental zones of influence, will set out clearly the bounds of their assessment, including the marine environment.

However, the environmental objectives guidance has been amended to reflect that, for spaceports located in coastal areas, when taking account of the impacts on the marine environment this should include consideration of the shoreline, estuaries, tidal areas and all internal waters as well as the sea.

The wider marine environment has already been defined in the guidance associated with the environmental objectives.

It should also be noted that the guidance does not require the regulator to ensure that licensees recover jettisoned objects as a matter of course, but rather that the regulator take account of whether retrieval of jettisoned objects has been considered.

The specific impacts associated with launch failure on the marine environment, although not explicitly mentioned in the guidance, must be considered as part of an AEE.

The AEE should also cover any adaptations undertaken by applicants to mitigate the effects of climate change through, for example, the introduction of flood defences. The environmental objectives have not been developed to duplicate the requirements of the AEE, which potential applicants for a spaceport or launch licence will have to submit.

Consultation feedback

Although one respondent suggested that the construction and decommissioning phases of a spaceport be considered, this is out of scope for both the objectives and the AEE, which address the impacts of the proposed operational activities and their mitigations.

Environmental effects associated with construction and decommissioning phases would be covered in the planning permission stage, where planning permission is required.

One respondent suggested that the government should use a similar approach to the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) in the United States, where a single environmental agency acts as the lead for all of the consents and permits which might be required for a given licence application that relate to the environment.

Government response

The government recognises the merits of this approach, and as the sector matures, could consider adopting a similar approach in the coming years. At present, however, the applicant is responsible for ensuring that it has obtained all of the required consents for its proposed activities.

Consultation feedback

One respondent raised concerns about activities that take place outside of the jurisdiction of the UK, such as retrieving or releasing jettisoned objects in waters not territorial to the UK.

Government response

Marine assessments, as set out in the guidance, are required regardless of where the drop zone is. As part of its approach to establishing commercial spaceflight in the UK, the government is in discussion with neighbouring countries to ensure that they are content with UK spaceflight activities in which they may have an interest.

This does not exempt potential licensees from making their own inquiries about what obligations they may need to meet to satisfy the requirements of those countries.

Consultation feedback

One respondent suggested that the regulator will need to ensure that for jettisoned objects the marine environment assessment should take account of the movement of debris from oceanic tides, wave and current movements.

Furthermore, that the regulator should ensure the potential cumulative effects of jettisoned objects in the marine environment from multiple launches, over the lifetime of the licence, will need to be accounted for.

Government response

We have clarified in the guidance on the marine environment that where spaceports are located on the coast, the assessment of impacts should cover impacts on the shoreline, estuaries and internal waters as, well as the sea.

In addition, the guidance on jettisoned objects in the marine environment now reflects that the regulator will need to ensure that the cumulative effects of jettisoned objects from multiple launches over the lifetime of a licence is taken into account.